USING FORCE TO GAIN VOICE: THE PROSPECTS AND LIMITS OF USING COERCIVE MECHANISMS TO SECURE DELIBERATIVE INCLUSION by NICOLE PAULA CURATO A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Political Science and International Studies School of Government and Society The University of Birmingham April 2011 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT USING FORCE TO GAIN VOICE: THE PROSPECTS AND LIMITS OF USING COERCIVE MECHANISMS TO SECURE DELIBERATIVE INCLUSION This thesis analyses the impact of marginalised groups using coercive mechanisms as a strategy for deliberative inclusion. It engages the literature on deliberative democratic theory that makes a case for using non-linguistic mechanisms to gain entry to exclusionary deliberative forums. This research explores its limits through a linguistic-based microanalysis of an ―extreme‖ case where marginalised political agents employed threats of force – the apparent antithesis of deliberation – in an attempt to secure inclusion. The case is that of a military mutiny in the Philippines in 2003, where a group of junior officers took over the central business district to publicly air their demands for reform to the military. This strategy opened up spaces for junior officers who did not have access to channels for grievance articulation to persuade government officials to launch reform programs that addressed their concerns in exchange for their peaceful return to barracks. The case highlights that the manner of gaining access to deliberative forums has an effect on the dynamic of the deliberative process. It is argued that while non-linguistic mechanisms can be constructive in opening deliberative spaces, they also risk limiting the deliberative process and outcomes that are borne of coercion. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This doctoral dissertation was made possible by the generous assistance of the Overseas Research Students Award Scheme and the University of Birmingham‘s Graduate Teaching Scholarship. The research was developed over three years under the supervision of Dr. Andrew Knops and Dr. Will Leggett and the continuous mentorship of Prof. John Holmwood and Rep. Walden Bello. The comments of Dr. John Parkinson and Prof. Peter Preston after the viva voce examination were also helpful in improving the final version of this piece. Integral to the completion of this research was the support provided by the Institute of Strategic and Development Studies (ISDS) in Manila and the Australian National University (ANU) Centre for Deliberative Global Governance. ISDS, under the leadership of Prof. Emeritus Carolina Hernandez and Prof. Herman Kraft, served as institutional host during the fieldwork in Manila, while ANU, with the support of Prof. John Dryzek, hosted a three-month institutional visit which provided the intellectual space to conduct data analysis and test preliminary ideas for the thesis. The hospitality and encouragement extended by the Department of Sociology in the University of the Philippines-Diliman as well as the editorial advice provided by Rodrigo Trompiz are deeply appreciated. As in any project, there are a number of individuals who indirectly yet indispensably contributed to the completion of this dissertation. Most of them are best thanked in person but the companionship and (in)sanity provided by André Palacios, Jonathan Ong and Kehinde Andrews deserve to be put on record. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Deliberative Theory: From what’s desirable to what’s possible 1 Deliberative inclusion: Connecting theory to practice 3 Research strategy 4 Aims 7 Main claims 7 Chapter overview 9 Chapter 1 Deliberating in a non-ideal speech situation 14 Classic deliberative theory 18 Process of exchanging reasons 17 Preference transformation 19 Inclusion 20 Criticisms and reformulations of the classic deliberative ideal 24 Strategies for inclusion 28 Overcoming exclusion during deliberation itself 37 Deliberation‘s linguistic roots 41 An important caveat: reason-giving as prerequisite to generating agreements 45 Chapter 2 Researching coercion and deliberative inclusion 51 Research question 52 Instrumental case study 53 Research design 55 Data gathering strategy 56 Primary data 57 Interview design 61 Research ethics 63 Secondary data 65 A note on translation 66 Data analysis 67 Grounded theory 67 Resolution-oriented reconstruction 68 Some limitations 75 Chapter 3 Marginalised Military Men 79 AFP as servant and author 81 AFP as servant (of elite interest) 82 AFP as author 88 Seeds of disagreement 92 Communicative channels in the AFP 99 Discredited communicative channels 104 Inauthentic channels 104 Inconsequential channels 108 Chapter 4 The road to Oakwood is paved with good intentions 115 Exploring other channels for grievance articulation 116 Gripes and pacts among peers 117 Joining a political campaign 120 Deliberative counter-publics 125 Formation of a counter-public 125 Deliberative meetings 129 The road to Oakwood 134 Deliberative activism? 137 Fidelity 139 Charity and exhaustion 141 Proportionality 143 Chapter 5 Gentlemen’s agreement, gentlemen’s argument 149 Confrontation stage 150 Communicating through force 152 Testimony 155 Violations 158 Opening stage 159 Discussion roles 159 Meta-discussion 163 Argumentation stage 171 Discussion rules 172 Topics of argumentation 174 Concluding stage 179 The mutiny as consequential 181 Violations of discussion rules 182 Diagnosing deliberative failure 187 The manner of gaining entry affects the dynamic of taking part 189 Epilogue 194 Chapter 6 Limitations of deliberation secured through coercion 196 Coercive tactics as justification for further exclusion 198 Challenges of building a communicative relationship 202 Speech cultures as deterrents of inclusion 207 Limits and prospects of deliberation secured through coercion 212 Directions for future research 215 Appendix 217 References 232 2 ABBREVIATIONS AFP Armed Forces of the Philippines CPP Communist Party of the Philippines DND Department of National Defence EDSA Epifiano delos Santos Avenue FFFC Feliciano Fact-Finding Commission ISAFP Intelligence Service, Armed Forces of the Philippines ISDS Institute for Strategic and Development Studies MILF Moro Islamic Liberation Front NICA National Intelligence Coordinating Agency NPA New People‘s Army NRP National Recovery Programme PDEA Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency PMA Philippine Military Academy PNP Philippine National Police PSG Presidential Security Group RAM Reform the Armed Forces of the Philippines Movement RSBS Retirement Separation Benefit System SWAG Special Warfare Action Group SWS Social Weather Stations INTRODUCTION DELIBERATIVE THEORY: FROM WHAT’S DESIRABLE TO WHAT’S POSSIBLE The literature on deliberative democracy has been a major intellectual force in the past two decades. It has shifted democratic discourse from an aggregative or ―vote-centric‖ tradition to a ―talk-centric‖ one where democracy is considered a matter of effective communication and not just preference aggregation (Dryzek, 1996, p.15). Deliberative theory maintains that democratic authenticity is achieved through deliberation: a ―special‖ process of political communication wherein ―deliberators are amenable to changing their judgments, preferences and views during the course of their interactions, which involve persuasion rather than coercion, manipulation or deception‖ (Dryzek, 2000, p.1). Democracy is considered more as a platform for publicly exchanging and weighing reasons to generate agreements and less as a market for pushing for private interests, as in the case of lobbying or bargaining (Parkinson, 2006, p.3). A major criticism of deliberative theory is its focus on conceptualising ―what is desirable rather than what is possible‖ (Phillips, 1995, p.190). Classic deliberative theory is viewed to have only identified the ideal conditions and principles that distinguish deliberation from other forms of political action. Its normative approach lacks an account of how its ideals translate to actually- existing circumstances. Questions are raised about the feasibility of having a cooperative and reason-based discussion under conditions of political exclusion, economic inequality and cultural marginalisation. Due to these criticisms, a number of deliberative democrats set off a theoretical trajectory focused on the complexities of deliberating under suboptimal conditions. Some have toned down the prominence classic deliberative theory has accorded to reason-giving as the ideal form of 1 political justification. Instead, reason-giving is considered just one of a variety of communicative modes acceptable in deliberation including rhetoric, storytelling, testimony and humour (e.g. Young, 1996; Dryzek, 2000; Parkinson, 2006; Chambers, 2009; Mansbridge et al., 2006). A model of deliberation that incorporates a diversity of speech styles recognises that some discourses, particularly disenfranchised ones, are best articulated through expressive means to generate