Problem with ‘activist,’ ‘militant,’ ‘terrorist’ tags

THIS REFERS to Mark Dia’s letter. (“On Ferraris and use of ‘militant’,” (Inquirer, 11/22/10) The letter raises the potentially problematic appreciation by the international arena of the term “militant” when applied to various groups in the Philippines where it has quite different senses. This is pointed out in the 2010 book “Primed and Purposeful: Armed Groups and Human Security Efforts in the Philippines” that I co-authored.

In that book, I noted Australian academic David Wright-Neville’s tentative typology of Islamist groups in Southeast Asia as a useful starting point in understanding the forces that drive the movement from unarmed struggle to armed struggle and ultimately to terrorism. Based on an increasing degree of political alienation, he has three classifications:

1. Activists—usually contain their action safely within the parameters of existing laws.

2. Militants—more inclined to push past the boundaries of existing laws, but with a self-limiting nature which reflects moral and ethical boundaries.

3. Terrorists—with no such self-limiting nature, they are led to a moral disengagement that makes it easier for them to ignore the conventional distinction between combatant and noncombatant, and to justify committing violence against a wider audience.

Using this typology, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) are militant, while the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), Rajah Solaiman Movement (RSM) and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) are terrorist.

In other contexts such as Kashmir or Gaza, “militant” is almost synonymous with “terrorist,” or at the very least an armed rebel or insurgent. Malaysian academic Kamarulnizam Abdullah, writing on militant Islam in Malaysia, uses “militant” to describe the use of unlawful force and violent acts to achieve one’s political objectives, creating either public fear or hatred against the perceived enemy of the perpetrating group or would result in public disorder, with possible detrimental effects on societal cohesion. There is in fact in Malaysia a jihadi group by the name(s) Kumpulan Militan [alternatively Mujahidin] Malaysia (KMM).

In the Philippines, “militant” had a very different connotation, associated with the “peaceful but militant, vigorous but non-violent” struggle of open and legal cause-oriented groups against the Marcos dictatorship. Today, it refers mainly to open and legal national-democratic (nat-dem) organizations, and to activism associated with the leftist political coalition Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan). In fact, Bayan’s activism is often referred to as “militant activism” to distinguish it from the moderate activism of the “social-democrats” or “soc-dems.” Interestingly, the term “militant” has had almost no local application to the Moro struggles, whether to pre-martial law Moro student activism or to the MNLF and MILF.

Potentially more dangerous are the associations—and listings, proscriptions and sanctions—that come with the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” if not properly defined, especially in law; but that is another matter requiring much longer discussion. –Philippine Daily Inquirer

—SOLIMAN M. SANTOS JR.,
judge, 9th MCTC of Nabua-Bato,
Camarines Sur