Waiting to Exhale: Filipino Nationalism in the Age of Globalization

by Leah Victoria T. Carada

At the end of the Cold War, a new phenomenon arose characterized by massive intensification of economic, political, social and cultural linkages across borders and continents. People call it many different names to the confusion of the common men and women. Some spoke of liberalization, while others started a discourse on internationalization-all these refer to rapid and large-scale changes in global trends that have significantly altered traditional views, standards and even practices. The good news is that somebody has finally coined a term to describe this phenomenon. The bad news is, up to this day, many still remain unable to understand it, much less cope with it. But whether we like it or not, the advent of globalization has come.

Globalization, they say, has eroded many of the significant foundations of what were then popularly known as the nation-states. The term nation-state means a state whose inhabitants consider themselves to be a nation, geographically and legally bounded under one legitimate government; the population of which submits to a subjective perception of belonging to the same historical, linguistic, racial or any other common relationships. Over the last decades, many of these nation-states have experienced serious inability to cope with global problems that require global solutions. A case in point is terrorism where states are opting to ally with other states in the international community if only to respond to the terrorist threat within their own borders. Some states have even practically surrendered their sovereignty to those who have the might to melt away terrorism.

Kenichi Ohmae, author of The End of the Nation State, also opines that the need for a nation-state has largely waned as the information age revolutionized business and international politics. His provocative thesis draws logic from the observation that the Cold War is over and that the financial flows around the world are no longer controlled by governments.

Christopher Cocker of the London School of Economics, however, aptly argues that globalization can only go as far as challenging institutions such as the state, but it cannot cause the latter to dissolve. This essay takes the same line of argument, postulating that states remain relevant and nationalism is still very much alive in the age of globalization.

The view that predicts the irrelevance of the nation-state in the era of globalization clearly drives a point. But it overlooks the fact that the nation-state may well be needed as we seek to mitigate the ills of globalization. This means that nation-states can always find a role even in a highly interdependent and virtually borderless world.

As globalization moves forward, its agents will gradually realize that it cannot afford to take on some of the problems it has created along the way. Globalization will certainly find benefit from states that can efficiently deal with the disturbances that magnify globalization's own waterloos. As former Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos puts it, "no authority can deal with the harmful impact of the spread of market values-the breaking up of families, destruction of traditional cultures, and provocation of the rise of radical and fanatic localisms-than the state." When things go sour in a highly globalized system, the world will still turn to states that have the sovereign right to regulate money flows, control the movement of people across national frontiers, and regulate people's activities within their areas of responsibility. In other words, cooperation among like-minded states remains to be the best line of defense against the c!
ritical offenses of globalization.

Amid all the changes created by globalization, therefore, nationalism will always find a way to manifest itself. It is likely to adapt to the age of globalization by reinventing itself, perhaps by cultivating a larger sense of national self-interest, or by any other fashion so long as it finds a way to cope. The persistence of nationalism, for instance, may well emerge out of massive perception of inequality as a result of the visibly widening gap between the developed and the developing countries. These perceptions can be easily fueled by what the disadvantaged sectors hear, see or read from a host of sources. The alienating forces of the global market could prick a nerve and suddenly awaken nationalist sentiments that might be difficult to contain without the moderation of states.

In the Philippines today, it cannot be denied that nationalism remains very much ingrained in the nation's fertile soil. The expulsion of thousands of Filipinos from Malaysia and the alleged harsh treatment of Filipinos in Sabah threaten to engulf the whole nation anew with a nationalist fury that could result in a major conflict between Malaysia and the Philippines, if left unabated. As the national media continues to highlight the issue, the state-in this case the Philippine government-is torn between appeasing its own people on the one hand, and managing its relations with its neighbor on the other. Regardless of how the situation will unfold hereafter, it is at least clear that nationalism is still very much alive and that nation-states remain relevant in the age of globalization.

At any rate, the situation confronting both the Philippines and Malaysia is but an indication of the downside of globalization. As globalization encourages and allows greater movement of people, the problem of displacement will always be there. Given the difficult economic situation in the Philippines, it is only understandable that the Philippine government is left without much choice but to protect its roughly 8 million nationals in different parts of the world. Away from their families, these Filipinos often seek refuge in Philippine embassies and consulates in case of emergencies abroad, again a manifestation of the people's continued recognition of the role of the state. After all, without the state, whom else could they turn to?

It is also interesting to note how the Filipino nation seeks to oppose forces of globalization that attempt to transcend the power of the state in responding to security threats. While certain sectors of the population might be willing to open Philippine territories to foreign troops, the bigger part of the population is there to caution the liberals, forcing the state to set limits to the movements and operations of non-Filipino troops within the country. This was practically why the Philippine government had to handle carefully the conduct of Balikatan Exercises in the country between Philippine and American troops recently. The state was clearly aware of the possible repercussions of allowing greater foreign intervention to unfold in a territory over which the Filipino nation maintains domestic jurisdiction and exercises sovereignty.

In the multilateral arena, Philippine nationalism exudes with its utmost intent to protect its national interest. Left with little voice and power to advance its own position, the Philippines gathers added strength from its neighbors and allies abroad if only to defend its own interest in various concerns. The country's membership in ASEAN, APEC, and the United Nations, among others, is but a result of the Philippines' nationalistic tendency that regards frameworks of integration as a means to pool and increase its own national strength abroad.

Ultimately, however, it is in the Filipino people where one can see the magnitude of the nation's sense of nationalism. Unfortunately, a controversial survey conducted by Pulse Asia Inc. recently showed that "one of every five Filipinos wants to leave the country for good and live in another country due to feeling of despair." Analysts say that "the situation is alarming because many of those who are leaving and those who want to leave the country now come from the upper and middle classes-educated, trained and financially able." This goes beyond the usual findings where many of those who want to leave the Philippines come from the vulnerable class of the society.

The Social Weather Stations Inc., on the other hand, argued that the question in the survey was double-barreled, as it posed queries that are inclined to cause ambiguity in interpretation. With a statement that says "There is no hope for the country. If possible, I would migrate to another country," one might be agreeing or disagreeing to either of the statements but not necessarily to both.

Whatever is the case, it can always be argued that such findings cannot measure the depth of the Filipinos' sense of nationalism. One's wanting to migrate does not equate with one's surrender of nationalism. Consider that many of the Filipinos overseas still strongly identify themselves with the Filipino nation. Filipino communities in different parts of the world watch closely the events in the country, at times even seeking to take part in some national endeavors in spite of their physical isolation. Their clamor for the immediate passage of the Absentee Voting Law illustrates the point clearly.

In closing, the Filipino nation is faced with the difficult task of breathing normally in the age of globalization. The challenge is for us to redefine Filipino nationalism in a way that will not fight, but manage globalization.