Are the people of Dumaguete in favor of the proposed 174-hectare reclamation project? The honest answer is that we do not know for sure. What we do know is that a somewhat “silent” majority of the City Council supports the project.
The idea of a silent majority outside the City Council and across the general population is not new. It reflects the campaign rhetoric of a political leader who believes that he has popular or “populist” support from those who either do not vote, or those who do vote but do not articulate their political views.
For example, former US President Richard Nixon appealed to the silent majority to get elected in 1972.
Closer to home, our Mayor has staked his political goodwill on the idea that the project will create jobs and lift people out of poverty. In this regard, it seems that he is appealing to those who would benefit from the project (which may well be a silent majority).
He also states that there will be “no short cuts” in the legal and procedural requirements that the project developer must meet. I believe him on this aspect of the process.
Moreover, local businesses appear to welcome the purported economic benefits of construction works, and the advent of new land areas. This aspect cannot be ignored. It has been featured in certain discussions on social media.
An example is the view that “the billions brought in for the project will definitely benefit the workers and everyone locally.”
The argument is, of course, based on the idea that the workers and local residents comprise the silent majority. It is nice that our business leaders have aligned themselves with workers and residents.
The problem, however, is that populist movements are a mixed blessing, depending on how democracy works. Populism can appeal to the poorest of society, and can be harnessed against the traditional elites (politicians, academia, scientists, technocrats, or even big businesses).
The small Pantawan reclamation has been a boon to street food vendors, for example. If it can succeed, an even grander reclamation could produce even more benefits.
On the other hand, populism can result from an awakening of resentment against authoritarian regimes (the most recent examples are those in Myanmar or Hong Kong).
The outcome is, therefore, highly uncertain. If the City Council were to simply impose its majority view on all, populist opposition can arise from grassroots activism; such populism can align with academia and scientists to protest because the environmental issues are being given little attention.
The Mayor promised on Aug. 9 that a forthcoming marine survey would give the data needed to assess the environmental issues.
Why such a study or survey is only now being emphasized in the public discussions is itself a good question, but never mind. We await this important bit of information and analysis needed for a proper public consultation.
The argument is also made against those who protest that they should provide an “alternative” solution. I disagree with this. It presumes that the project is already perfect.
In the usual process of democratic decision-making, the burden of proof is on the proponent. That is why the “no short cuts” approach of the Mayor is laudable.
In any event, democracy is about the wishes of the majority that should not unduly trample the rights of minorities. The very old silent majority used to be those who had already died. The members of the Nixonian silent majority were those who were simply that – silent.
Today, the silent majority ought to include not just those who are somehow unwilling or reluctant to be heard; the silent majority should also include the yet unborn, who will have to live with the consequences of the reclamation.
But of course, like the dead, the unborn have no voice. Do we ignore them then in the pursuit of economic benefits for the present generation? It is a most difficult question.
_______________________________________________________
Author’s email: oroncesval4@gmail.com; Twitter: @ORoncesvalles
