Font size: 
Fences have cultural functions. Scholars believe the history of civilization is intertwined with the history of the fence. The rise of farming, protection of settlements and private property coincided with the construction of fences.
But the fence is more a manifestation of people’s paranoia. It shows their inability to live peacefully with their neighbors. It also symbolizes the failure of societies to equally distribute the goods of the economy to everyone, especially the poor. Since inequality breeds hatred, the privileged few must be protected (fenced) from the hungry barbarians at the gates.
In the Philippines the most famous historical fence is the Walled City of Intramuros. The fortification was intended to ward off pirates, foreign troops and local dissidents during the Spanish colonial period. The walls were meant to preserve Spanish hegemony in the islands. Inside the walled city, the Spanish colonizers built church cathedrals, convents, universities, and mansion houses.
Like the Spanish colonial rulers, Philippine politicians are also afraid that angry Filipinos will revolt against the established government. This is the reason why Malacanang Palace continues to be heavily fortified. Malacanang is the country’s seat of power yet it is inaccessible to ordinary Filipinos. The last time the palace doors were opened to the poor was more than 50 years ago, during the term of President Ramon Magsaysay.
President Gloria Arroyo, the present occupant of Malacanang, ordered the construction of an electric fence to prevent people from crashing the gates of the palace. During protest rallies, Malacanang is surrounded by container vans so that no one can get near the beleaguered president. The president is afraid of her own people.
The practice of building an exclusive elite community during the Spanish era was continued by succeeding generations in the Philippines. Scholar Benedict Anderson has this observation on the unique urban planning in the country:
“Forbes Park was the first, and still the most celebrated, of these beaux quartiers, which remain sociologically unique in Southeast Asia. Elsewhere in the region luxurious houses are jumbled together with the dwellings of the poor. But the golden ghetto of Forbes Park was policed, as a complex, by armed security guards; access even to its streets required the production of identification papers.”
Indeed, affluent villages in the Philippines are protected by strong and high walls. The poor are denied access to these exclusive subdivisions. Fences were adjusted higher to prevent passengers, pedestrians and motorists using the flyovers, footbridges and the elevated railway from having a glimpse of the mansions in prosperous Makati City. The rich must have their privacy. On the other side of the fence, urban poor homes are demolished to give way for road widening and more parking spaces.
In the economic sphere, the fence is the trade barrier implemented by protectionist or closed economies. Market fundamentalists and free trade adherents want these barriers dismantled. Poor countries like the Philippines are bullied to decrease or remove tariff rates so that rich countries can dump their cheap products. They say the world has become a global village where borderless (fenceless) economies and multinational companies are bringing wondrous benefits to the poor.
The paradox of this doctrine is that developed countries acquired their wealth by building economic fences in the past. These countries supported their local manufacturers by discouraging foreign competition. Now they are lecturing poor countries about the advantages of practicing free trade.
In fact, rich countries are guilty of establishing new trade barriers. They do not want to completely open their economies to free trade. They provide hefty subsidies to their farmers. They impose stringent regulation on imported goods. For example, Filipino tuna producers and banana growers are complaining that rich countries are imposing unreasonable standards which restrict trade. Rich nations are rejecting Filipino products while the Philippine government welcomes their exports.
The Philippines should abandon the economic prescription of the neoliberals. What the country needs are strong fences in order to become a first-world nation. The fences will curb smuggling, which robs honest local traders of their income. The fences will boost the productivity of domestic industries, especially the agricultural sector.
Globalization continues to revolutionize travel and communication. But the movement of people is still unreasonably controlled. Rich countries are establishing fences to push the immigrants away. Border patrols are expanded to guard national territories.
Lobbyists, credit analysts and investment consultants are given access in developing countries to study the situation of poor communities. But the migrant workers in rich countries are subjected to bureaucratic, sometimes unjust, immigration procedures. Capital is free to circulate but the working classes are not allowed to swiftly move in and out of countries.
The truth of globalization is that societies are becoming more and more paranoid. Cases of racism and violence in “tolerant societies” are up. New forms of inequality are developing. Symbolic and literal walls separate immigrant groups, ethnic communities and marginalized communities from those enjoying economic prosperity. Philosopher Slavoj Zizek describes this new form of racism as economic egotism.
Technology has given individuals the chance to fantasize about escaping from the harsh realities of an alienating world. Music players, Internet and video games serve as imaginary walls which prevent people from fully participating in the making of a more liberating society.
Perhaps the most disagreeable persons are the fence sitters. Those who are aware of the real harm brought by divisive and oppressive fences, yet still choose to be on the sidelines, should be condemned for their inaction. To paraphrase Machiavelli, we should not fear the dictator, but the apathy of the people.
Real and symbolic fences are proof that people are still living in an unequal, divided and intolerant world. It is not enough to smash the walls that exclude the impoverished from the rest of society. Some protective economic fences are essential, especially for small and developing countries. The more radical act is to change the iniquitous social conditions of the present.
--
(Mong Palatino is a Filipino youth activist, news editor of Yehey!, a Philippine-based Web portal, and regional editor for Southeast Asia of Global Voices Online. He can be contacted at mongpalatino@gmail.com and his Web site is www.mongpalatino.motime.com. ©Copyright Mong Palatino)
