Colonial Education and Separatist Rebellion in the Philippines and Burma

• In Event: Legacies of Colonial Institutions in Contemporary Civil Wars

Abstract

Why do some separatists rebel sooner than others? Independence is a context in which states exhibit political instability and weakness, yet not all groups take advantage of this opportunity and attempt to secede. Rationalist explanations of rebellion which focus on factors of wealth or opportunity over-emphasize the ability of groups to take advantage of certain moments and under-emphasize how groups perceive wealth or opportunity. Emotive explanations emphasize the importance of subjective determination and relative conditions. Yet while these studies point to political exclusion or perceptions of backwardness on the eve of independence as explanations for separatist rebellion, they do not account for how groups end up in that position or why they come to this conclusion, respectively. Without considering education, these explanations miss what shapes the underlying conditions for rebellion that affect group positionality and perceptions of it. What students learn influences the nature of the grievances and opportunities for social mobility.

Through a combination of interviews and archival data from colonial offices, I utilize process-tracing in two cases: the Moros in the Philippines and the Karen in Burma. In order to understand the logic of when rebellion occurs, I address two necessary conditions for why it occurs: development of a national identity and perceptions of inclusion based on this identity. I argue that colonial education policies structure group perceptions of inclusion in the new state, becoming particularly salient in the lead-up to independence. Penetrative education policies encourage the development of a national identity by heightening the attachment of minority groups to the colonizer and strengthening bonds within the same community. As a result, rebellion tends to happen sooner because it is easier for groups to identify conditions of discrimination. In contrast, shallow education policies do not heighten reliance on or association with the colonizer and instead promote political fragmentation within groups. Without encouraging the development of a national identity, shallowly educated groups are less likely to feel targeted on the basis of that identity. This ultimately delays rebellion.

Author

• Mary Anne Mendoza, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona