Ivo Sieber is the Swiss ambassador to the Philippines
First published in Philippine Star

After spending most of April abroad, I returned to Manila on the day when the “Peace Council” presented its report on the BBL. Following the acrimonious national discourse in the wake of Mamasapano, this skillfully drafted report brings an important new perspective to the national debate on this important piece of legislation.

While reading the report I could not help but associate the ongoing process of building the Bangsamoro with the creation of the Swiss Canton of Jura, which came into being less than four decades ago. After years of controversy and occasionally violent encounters, in which the predominantly catholic and French-speaking Northwestern region of the Canton of Bern demanded more autonomy and the establishment of its own political entity within the Swiss Confederation, the Swiss citizens in a referendum held in 1978 approved the setting-up of the new canton.

Only in my early twenties at the time, I vividly remember the vibrant declarations of politicians and civil society in favor and against the creation of this new political entity. The historical vote that took place on 24 September 1978 riveted the country. An ongoing participatory process that led to two further ballots in 1994 and 1996 consolidated the new canton. It culminated in a referendum held only 11 years ago, which settled the final shape and structure of the youngest Swiss canton.

Sharing this episode of Swiss history with a Filipino friend, I was intrigued by his question if there was any lesson that our Swiss experience could offer the Philippines. While I spontaneously discarded such a notion, it kept me thinking.

A direct comparison of the two situations is evidently not possible. Nevertheless, some issues at stake are similar. For one, a settlement for the Canton of Jura and for the BBL could only be reached if they are compatible with the national constitution. Moreover, questions associated with cultural identity as well as those related to socio-economic and historical grievances require addressing. In both cases, the understanding – or the lack thereof – of society at large regarding these grievances, as well as the prejudices at stake in favor or against the proposed solutions necessitate that a broad backing is assured.

If I were to conclude the conversation with my Filipino friend on the lessons learned from the Jura experience, I would argue that once a decision is taken to establish a new autonomous entity, the way such a process is accompanied makes a vital difference. Indeed, there is no perfect law, no perfect solution and no perfect process for charting this path. Acknowledging this challenge and that real solutions must be given to real needs is crucial. Or as the Peace Council states in its report: “The creation of a meaningful autonomy in Mindanao is both a social justice and a peace and development issue … (T)he establishment of the Bangsamoro Autonomous region through the BBL must be seen as an alternative to war.”

Building trust is a long-term endeavor that can grow when a constructive approach is applied towards managing problems and searching for solutions. Indeed the capacity of the partners involved, their perseverance, creativity and preparedness to engage in pragmatic and doable solutions can make the difference.

In the case of the Jura, this approach succeeded. The women and men involved in the Peace Council also demonstrated that it is possible to make a difference. To bring about the Bangsamoro and to make it work, one can only wish that such a Council continues to accompany the BBL’s implementation with its sober, pragmatic and inclusive approach - and a real commitment for the whole nation!