Disyembre 20, 2008

Mainit na pagbati sa mga magigiting na sosyalista ng Cebu!

Ipagpaumanhin niyo kung ang aking mensahe ay nasa wikang Tagalog at hindi sa Inggles. Mas maihahayag ko ang aking nararamdaman sa Tagalog kaysa Ingles dahil ang wikang Ingles ay wika ng aking utak subalit ang wikang Tagalog (o Filipino) ay ang wika ng aking puso.

Ang pambansang pamunuan ng BISIG ay malugod na bumabati sa bawat isa sa inyo sa paglulunsad ng Asembliya ng ating organisasyon. Kami rin ay nagpupugay sa inyo bilang pinakaunang chapter ng BISIG na nabuo sa labas ng NCR at nananatiling pinaka-aktibong chapter sa ngayon.

Ang BISIG, sa loob ng 21 taon ay lantarang namandila ng sosyalismo bilang alternatibo sa krisis ng kapitalismo. Ang pangunahing papel ng BISIG, mula nang ito ay itinatag ay maging isang ideolohikal at pulitikal na organisasyon na nais hamigin ang kaisipan at puso ng bawat mamamayang Filipino para sa adhikain ng sosyalismo at magbuo ng mga sentro ng kapangyarihan upang mabago ang mapang-aping sistema ng kapitalismo. Nakapagtatag tayo ng mga iba’t-ibang instrumento ng kapangyarihan tulad ng mga sentro ng paggawa, partidong pampulitika, kilusang masa sa hanay ng kabataan-estudyante, magbubukid, maralitang tagalungsod at mga kababaihan. At hindi matatawaran ang naging kontribusyon ng BISIG sa pagsasakapangyarihan ng mamamayan sa pamamagitan ng mga nabanggit na instrumento ng kapangyarihan. Nagtatag din tayo ng mga NGOs upang magsulong ng mga alternatibong programa at mga koalisyon upang magbigkis sa iba pang mga pwersa tungo sa panlipunang pagbabago.

Sa pagdaan ng panahon ay yumabong ang mga institusyon at mga instrumentong ito hanggang sa yugto na lantaran na rin nitong ipinamamandila ang ideolohiyang ating itinataguyod, maging ang mga estratehiya at pampulitikang linya ay hinalaw na rin ng mga itinayo nating mga organisasyon. At ito ay isang tagumpay sa hanay nating mga sosyalistang kadre at mga lider. Ang makitang dumarami ang mga grupong yumayakap at kumikilos para marating ang ating mga pangarap.

Bagamat sa paglipas rin ng panahon ay kinakitaan ng mga kahinaan ang ating kilusan, hindi ito dapat maging hadlang upang tayo ay manghina at tumigil sa pagkilos. Iyan ang dayalektika ng buhay. Aksyon at reaksyon. Tagumpay at kabiguan.  Ang ilan ay nagtatanong kung ano na ang kabuluhan at direksyon ng BISIG.  Ito ay mga balidong mga katanungan at indikasyon na buhay ang organisasyon.

Para sa akin, ngayon higit kailanman na dapat nating bigyang kabuluhan ang pagiging isang ideolohikal na organisasyon ng BISIG.

Walang ibang panahon na lubhang napakaganda upang ibandila ang sosyalismo bilang alternatibo kundi ngayon-ngayon kung saan ay nadarama at nakikita ng mga mamamayang Pilipino ang krisis na dulot ng kapitalistang sistema. Ang krisis na ito sa katunayan ay hindi lamang isang simpleng krisis pampinansiyal kundi isang krisis ng modelo ng neoliberalisasyon o kapitalismo, at higit pa, krisis ng ideolohiya ng kapitalismo! Ang nangyayari ngayong pagkabangkarote ng mga kumpanya dulot ng krisis ng labis na produksyon, pagkagahaman , deregulasyon ay isang krisis na hindi pa naranasan sa ilalim ng neoliberal na rehimen.  Ang pag bail out at nasyunalisasyon ng mga industriya sa Estados Unidos at Europa ay isang malaking sampal sa mukha, at ideolohiya ng kapitalismo. Ang ideolohiya ng malayang merkado ay isang bangungot ngayon na kinakaharap ng mismong mga kapitalistang bansa.  At dahil  dito, ibayong hirap at gutom ang daranasin ng mga mamamayan, hindi lamang sa mga kapitalistang bansa kundi sa buong daigidig.  Mas magiging malaganap ang kawalan ng trabaho na magdudulot ng ibayong krisisi pangpinansya at kawalan ng kapangyarihang pang ekonomiya ng sambayanan.

Sa Pilipinas, ay wala nang gaanong dapat na ipaliwanag pa kung tutuusin upang ilantad ang krisis na dulot ng liberalisasyon, pribatisasyon at deregulasyon ng kabuhayan. Ang kaliwa’t kanang problema ng korapsyon , iskdalo at pagkabangkarote ng pamamamahala mula sa pambansang pamahalaan hanggang sa mga lokal na pamahalaan ay malinaw na krisis ng isang elitistang demokrasya. Ang patriyarkiya ay nararanasan oras-oras ng mga kababaihan lalo na sa mga maralitang komunidad. Ano pa ang sapat na paliwanag kundi ang kongkretong karanasan ng masang Pilipino na araw-araw ay natatanggal sa trabaho, walang makain, ginigiba ang tahanan, at marami pang ibang problemang dulot ng mga nabanggit na sistemang pang-ekonomiya at pang pulitika?

Sa normal na pagkakataon, ang mga kalagayang ito ay lubhang hinog upang mahikayat ang masa upang kumilos na baguhin ang kanilang kalagayan – sa anumang porma ng legal na pakikibaka, parlyemantaryo, kilusang masa o elektoral man.  Subalit hindi normal ang kalagayan sa Pilipinas.

Ang hindi normal sa kalagayan natin ay ang pagkabaon ng masang Pilipino sa kultura ng pagsasawalang kibo, kawalang pag-asa at balot ng kultura ng pagkatakot.

Dito dapat ginagampanan ng mga kilusang tulad natin ang ating makasaysayan at marangal na tungkulin. Ang imulat, iorganisa at pakilusin ang malawak na bilang ng masa, tungo sa isang malawak at malakas na kilusan ng mamamayan na may mapagpasya upang baguhin ang balanse ng kapangyarihan.

Subalit sa kabila ng krisis ng modelo at ideolohiya ng kapitalismo, ay may krisis din ang kilusang progresibo at Kaliwa sa Pilipinas. Hindi nito epektibong mamulat, maorganisa at mapakilos ang masa para sa isang mapagpasyang pagbabago. Ilan sa mga mamamayan ang nakakaunawa na sistema ang problema? Ilan sa mga mamamayan ang pinag-uusapan ang sosyalismo bilang alternatibo? May agitation ba sa hanay ng masa? May masidhing pagnanasa bas a hanay ng masa upang baguhin ang kanilang kalagayan? Ilan ang mga bago nating napapakilos?

Kaya ngayon higit na dapat nating balikan ang ating mga batayang gawain at tungkulin bilang mga sosyalista. Ang hikayatin ang malawak na bilang ng masa upang itaguyod ang isang alternatibong sistema.  Ang giyahan ang mga masang organisasyon upang lahat ng puwang na kanilang pasukin ay nagdudulot at lumilikha ng pagsasakapangyarihan ng masa – mulat, may kasanayan, may kahandaan sa sariling paraan na kumilos at baguhin ang kanilang kalagayan.

Kailangan nating muling pasiglahin ang ideolohikal na gawain, mga kasama. Praxis. Kumbinasyon ng teorya at praktika.  Sa katunayan, ilang beses na rin nating nadinig mula sa ating mga lider na “gamitin ang kasalukuyang krisis bilang oportunidad, etc.” subalit maraming humahadlang upang totohanang gamitin ang krisis na ito bilang oportunidad sa pagmumulat, pag-oorganisa at pagpapakilos ng masa.

At ito, itong kontekstong ito, ang sa tingin ko ay ang higit na dapat na mas mangibabaw at maging pangunahing basehan natin sa muling pagtuklas sa kalahagahan at direksyon ng BISIG.  Sa kongkreto, ibalik at simulan ang mga study circles sa loob ng ating hanay. Pasiglahin ang debate at talakayan, sa loob ng BISIG at maging sa iba pang mga kaibigan sa Kaliwa.  Bumalik tayo sa solid organizing. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Ito ang ginawa noong kasiglahan ng kilusang masa sa panahon ng sigwa ng unang kwarto, panahon ng dekada 80 kung saan bumubulwak sa kalye ang masa na naghahangad ng pagbabago. Ito rin ang ginawa ng mga sa ngayon ay “lumaya” nang mga mamamayan sa Latin Amerika na nagtatamas ng bunga ng kanilang pakikibaka sa kasalukuyan.

“Easier said than done , ” sasabihin ng iba.Maraming balakid. Lohistika. Pinansya. Tao. Problema. Pero ang lahat ng iyan ay laging naririyan. Sa BISIG, malaking problema yan. Gawan natin ng paraan na solusyonan ang problemang yan dahil wala tayong choice mga kasama. Lahat ng tagumpay may sakripisyong kaakibat. Baka nga kaya hindi pa tayo ganap na nagtatagumpay ay kulang pa ang sakripisyo ng mga grupong tulad natin. Lahat tayo, mula nasyunal hanggang sa lahat ng mga chapter sa probinsya ay muling magnilay at magpanibagong buhay sa pagkilos kung talagang nasa kaibuturan ng ating mga puso ang maglingkod sa kapwa at sa ating bansa, ang maalab na damdamin na makamit ang pangarap na demokrasya at sosyalismo para sa mga Pilipino.

Sa panghuli, muli nagpapasalamat ako sa bawat isang sosyalistang nananatili at tumitindig sa Cebu sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala sa ating kilusan at sa ating pangarap.

Padayon mga kasama!

Mabuhi ang BISIG – Cebu!

Sosyalismo alternatibo!

Lubos na sumasainyo,

Kasamang Ed Chavez

Pambansang Pangkalahatang Kalihim

August 26, 2008

This recent, the entire country is gripped by the issue of the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) concerning the Bangsamoro people’s rightful claim of their Ancestral Domains (AD) and the Bangsamoro Judirical Entity (BJE). The issue was so explosive and emotional that it regretfully aroused misplaced passions, renewed prejudices and unnecessary violence on an otherwise opportune moment for progressive forces much more the democratic left to discuss, popularize its concepts and give necessary illumination to the enduring Mindanao predicament which many view with wrong assumptions and understanding.

We believe the Mindanao Question is a complex problem. It is so multifaceted that it is almost impossible to decipher it in a simplistic manner. However, while we believe understanding and political clarity are the most basic necessities as of the moment, we also deem it necessary that these must be arrived through intelligent, democratic, far-reaching and dispassionate discourse.

This paper is a contribution to such an exercise.

The Right to Self-Determination

Marx’s famous dictum “workers have no countries of their own, only a world to win” has been the battle cry of the revolutionary working class all around the globe and the foundation of its internationalist struggle and solidarity. It clearly distinguished revolutionary socialism from the pitfalls of superficial nationalism and its tendency towards social chauvinism and fascism as well as the concrete class interest of the proletariat and the broad masses from that of the bourgeoisie.

However, this does not mean the left movement outrightly dismisses national oppression because it is opposed or a hindrance to the international accord of the workers. We believe in this present situation, the concept of nations and countries are a reality that must be dealt by the forces of change and not esoterically ignored in exchange of “unadulterated class struggle” as espoused by “super leftists.”

While we believe in class struggle, we also believe a nation oppressing another nation will never be free and will instead be a hindrance to the emancipation of the working people and our important work of socialist construction. Thus, the right to self-determination or the right to independence, the right to free, political secession from the oppressing nation is a just struggle of all nations.

This must be dissociated from the false postulation provided by the likes of Vice Governor Pinol, the Lobregats, the Makati Business Club (MBC) and the elite politicians that self-determination is a Pandora box which will open a sovereign state like the Philippines to unnecessary partition. This line of argument is shallow and flawed as it is designed to confuse and sow fear rather than enlighten.

The struggle for self-determination is but the rationale political expression against national oppression as experienced by a legitimate nation or a group of people comprising such categorization. The Bangsamoro realm is such an example.

Nationalism of the Oppressed Vs. Nationalism of the Oppressor

In a capitalist setup, it is true that each country is divided by class, its antagonisms and the state-which while representing predominantly the interest of the ruling class must also obtain the support of “the ruled.” This can be done through force or by consent. Included in “consent” is a narrow appeal for a backward nationalist sentiment as in our case, advocated by the so-called anti- chop chop elite opposition based in Manila which is conveniently being re-echoed by the local elites in Mindanao.

Hence, we must make a distinction between the fake nationalism of the tyrants and the nationalism of the oppressed. This is an imperative not so much because we want a better form of nationalism but because we are not prone to accept the superiority of one nation over another. On the contrary, we struggle for equality of all countries and such scenario can only happen by recognizing the right of oppressed nations to self-determination.

This is a necessary first step in uniting the working people of the oppressed nations with that of the oppressor nations towards socialism.

Bangsamoro: A Defiant and Proud Nation

While the Bangsamoro people are now a minority in Mindanao, this was not always the case. Any critical student of our history will know that long before the Spanish colonizers came; our sister and brother Muslims already have a sophisticated level of governance, sense of nationality and a blossoming culture. In fact, a large part of Manila was under Moro rule like Manila and Tondo. This was long before Comrade Andres Bonifacio and the revolutionary Katipunan imagined a Philippine nation outside of the feudal Spanish crown. If only the Spaniards came in a little later, then maybe we will discuss a different history-a history perhaps without Spain.

In fact, three centuries of Spanish rule did nothing in subjugating the Bangsamoro people which resulted to a desperate conclusion from the conquistadores that the Moro people were in fact a different nation. As of 1896, when the Philippine revolution took center stage, there were in fact two nations struggling against Spain, the then emerging yet besieged Philippine Nation and the unconquered Bangsamoro Homeland.

The American colonizers also shared the same sentiment. The Kiram-Bates Treaty is a proof of this fact. While it may be seen by some as a compromise by the Sultanate of Sulu, the American forces known for their arrogance and triumphalism also yielded, thereby, preserving not only the Bangsamoro realm but also getting virtual admission from the Americans of the existence of such a nation.

It is only the superior weaponry of the US, their brutal wars/massacres coupled with legalized land-grabbing, political and economic disenfranchisement using unknowing Filipino settlers as sanctioned by the then colonial Filipino government which turned the tide against the Moro people and which eventually led to their dislocation from their own land.

The Ancestral Domain and the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA)

For the longest time, the main mode of the Bangsamoro people to reclaim their homeland is through armed struggle. The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) are the expressions of this form of struggle. While it is a just and legitimate struggle, it however claimed a regretful 120,000 lives and displaced thousands.

That is why the MoA between GRP and the MILF is somewhat a breakthrough not only because it elevated to a higher level the Moro people’s right to self-governance and determination, more so, it is also a peaceful political rectification of the flawed annexation of their nation to that of the Philippine republic.

For the very first time, the imperial government of Manila will recognize the Moros as a people with distinct territory, history, culture and struggle; will recognize their war of national liberation against colonial rule as just and legitimate.

Furthermore, the MoA proposes a governance framework while not fundamentally creating an independent nation as it only grants associative relationship with the Philippine Government; nonetheless, is a necessary first step and a political tool by the Moro people in the realization of a nation of their own. Yet again, it doesn’t automatically mean that the MoA is outrightly tainted or worse a “treason” of the Bangsamoro’s cause. Lest we forget, this did not fall squarely at the laps of the Moros. It was a product of a determined and just struggle.

However, the bogus Arroyo regime as always has other intentions such as prolonging its stay to power via charter change while using the MoA as conciliation with the US Government. Worse, the Arroyo Regime might use the current state of hostilities to introduce martial rule.

In this predicament, the left movement together with the broad masses must dismantle all of Mrs. Arroyo’s ambitions to extend power beyond 2010 by tinkering with the present constitution or by flirting with fascist rule. In the immediate, we must smash the renewed aspirations of the Arroyo regime to lengthen its rule using the MoA or the Bangsamoro people’s legitimate struggle.

The United States and the Specter of Imperialism

On the other hand, it is also out-and-out absurdity on our part not to see the United States’ hand in this juncture. Truly, imperialism is well and alive in Mindanao as it is in many parts of the world.

Without doubt, the United States is making plans in asserting itself as the “peacekeeper” and “protector” of the “newly-carved territory” to advance its political, economic and military interests. For one, Mindanao is militarily strategic to the US. Much more, it is rich in natural resources-resources like oil, greedy private corporations want to have a hand on.

BISIG strongly cautions our Moro sisters and brothers of such dangerous interests in the periphery. While we respect the right and the struggle for self-determination, we strongly assert that the United States and the bankrupt Arroyo Regime cannot become legitimate instruments and political conveyors to achieve genuine and lasting peace.

War, Peace and Atrocities

We also strongly condemn the atrocities committed against non-combatants and civilians. Likewise, we denounce the armament of civilian volunteer organizations fanning the flame of a pseudo Christian-Muslim war. While war might be an outcome of a legitimate and popular struggle, our long experience taught us that a purely military solution has only escalated conflicts, misunderstanding and un-peace. We maintain, the resolution of a question such as Mindanao can be mainly achieved through a political and economic solution.

Thus, we enjoin the MILF and GRP to offset the growing peace deficit by respecting the dignity of life and human rights by implementing an immediate cessation of military actions and by continuing with the peace process.

Equally, we remind the public not to let their emotions, prejudices and biases be the central configurations in an issue which has now become a national public discourse. We should do away with the anti-Moro propaganda of the reactionary media and the dim-witted statements of supposed enlightened politicians who do not know better.

Socialism, Secularism and the Bangsamoro Homeland

For the longest time, socialism was always deemed to be at the side of secularism. The socialist tradition debunked institutionalized religion and faith as bastions of reaction, “the opium of the masses.” The basis was that religion for the longest time was a source of conservatism, of clerico-fascism as people were taught by elite-controlled institutions of hegemony such as the church to fully entrust their destinies to a supernatural being that emphasizes powerlessness and justifies exploitation.

However, through the years, a section of today’s contemporary religion and faith have been advocating for radical change in the “material world” which they believe must be duly realized the soonest possible. Our brand of Socialism recognizes that progressive faiths can be a force of change. Example of this is the radical section of the Christian faith that struggles to free the gospel from its bourgeois class fetters by linking faith with revolutionary struggle. The anti imperialist stance of progressive Islam is another yet, different example.

Without doubt, Socialism and the Moro struggle are not incompatible concepts and perspectives, much more the Moro people’s aspiration for an independent homeland with that of the emancipation of the Filipino working class from the rule of capital. We both aim for a better world, a better society and a truly lasting peace for all.

However, it can only happen by aiming for the abolition of global capitalism and by aspiring for the strategic abolition of the current political and economic dissection of the working peoples of the world which in turn will create a just and pluralist socialist society.

Then maybe, maybe then, the new people of the new world with new perspectives and values will come close to each other once more and celebrate their optimum freedom, democracy and justice.

We are All Moros

If there is one thing this juncture has taught us is this; a thorough, critical and an alternative review of our history will point us to the fact that the modern “Filipino insurgents” of the contemporary Philippine state fighting capitalist exploitation have much in common with the Moro insurgents rightfully struggling to reclaim their homeland. Both were deprived of their sense of nations, both were subdued and exploited by foreign colonizers; both are fighting for genuine independence, peace and freedom.

In a sense, we are all Moros. Not just because we share the same historical Malay origins, but more importantly, we are all Moros because we share the same pain of losing our sense of nation and the joy of rediscovering once more our own respective national aspirations. Without doubt, the struggle of the north and the south are tied in an uncoincidental political umbilical cord of struggle.

The right to self-determination is a struggle close to the heart of socialism. It is not an alien concept. These ideas were first put forward by Karl Marx on the question of England’s oppression of Ireland. He rightfully saw the “profound antagonism” between the Irish proletariat and the English proletariat. This antagonism among the English workers he said was artificially nourished and fanned by the British elite. Marx saw this as the underlying antagonism, the secret of maintaining its oppressive power over Ireland.

While the said countries’ experience is different from ours, the same thing can be said of the Mindanao question. In the final analysis, the relatively free working class of the Philippines cannot completely claim freedom not even under a society geared towards socialist democracy unless the working people of the Bangsamoro people are equally free. Furthermore, the Filipino working class cannot unite with the Moro working people and the rest of workers of the world in defeating the unjust global order unless the Moro people are free as represented in the immediate by an independent Bangsamoro homeland.

Prospects and Challenges

The current issue while complex also presents the democratic left with an important opportunity for engagement. The fundamental challenge is to contribute largely in building a stronger and wider peace consensus involving all stakeholders in order to attain a truly democratic solution to the Mindanao problem.

In the same way, we must bring down the discussions on ancestral domain and right to self-determination down to the communities not only to allay fears and dispel myths, but more importantly to empower the people; so that they will have collective ownership over their future which had been denied to them by succeeding governments and the status quo.

The very issue itself addresses the very core of a national question that any nation and its peoples must grapple. This is the challenge the Democratic Left, Moros and Filipinos alike must face.

26 August 2008

Turn the Economic Predicament into a Political Crisis!
Abandon the Unpopular Gloria! Abandon The Detested Capitalist System!

*Statement of the Union of Filipino Socialists (BISIG) on Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s 8th State of the Nation Address (SONA)

Today, Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the make-believe president of a make-believe strong republic will deliver her 8th State of the Nation Address (SONA) as provided by a constitutional mandate to annually report the country’s current state of affairs.

However, instead of giving the people an accurate accounting of the country’s circumstances under her leadership, the public was treated to an orgy of untruths, fabricated achievements and hallucinating visions of grandeur. Using a combination of intimidating statistics, rent-seeking politics and dole-out measures, for the last eight years, Mrs. Arroyo together with her cabal of paid hacks and capitalist apologists tried to paint a rosy economic picture amid the backdrop of increasing hunger, poverty and a growing democratic deficit.

There is no reason this SONA will be different from the previous ones. Like her previous annual reports, this SONA will be a continuing distortion of the actual political and economic realities experienced by the people.

“The Dream is Over”

Nonetheless, the Arroyo regime’s penchant for lying may yet prove to be its much-awaited downfall. While the exposition of economic superficialities, of supposed GDP growth, of curbing the fiscal deficit and a strong currency may have temporarily satisfied the inquisitiveness of a doubting public, Mrs. Arroyo’s “final fantasy” and “bubble economy” burst in the face of an unrepentant global financial crisis.

With this, the seemingly slumbering masses numbed and calloused by failed popular uprisings-Edsa upsurges which were always hijacked by the elite, are slowly showing once more its previously proscribed anger to this inutile and illegitimate government. Furthermore, disenchantment to a way of life as prescribed by a social system that does not deliver on its promises of economic bliss and prosperity is sweeping society like an uncontrollable plague.

Truly, under the climate of a crippling economic crisis composed of unmitigated oil price hikes, food insecurity and unregulated energy charges, the Arroyo regime’s development paradigm is exposed for what it is truly is; fundamentally flawed, elite-driven and crisis-endemic.

Enter Populism

And how did Malacanang react to this undeniable economic crisis? By manufacturing spectacles and scaffoldings of imaginary government support and increased subsidy. In short, resorting to populist but negligible measures which won’t make a dent in giving people ambulatory relief to the pains of the ongoing economic transgression.

Some may argue that there is nothing wrong with populism as it is defined as the practice of advocating the rights, virtues and/or perspectives of the common people. Surely, the left movement had its share of populism. We agree. However, it becomes erroneous when it becomes the definitive solution to complex soci0economic problems which necessarily entails comprehensive and structural resolutions. Much worse, populism becomes outrightly reactionary when it is practiced to defend a blatantly corrupt regime or system and to desensitize the public’s consciousness and mind-set to revolt or aspire for change.

This is precisely what the Arroyo regime has been doing since the crisis erupted.

While offering an assortment of dole-outs such as the 500-Peso lifeline support for poor electric consumers, tuition moratorium to state schools, cheap NFA rice and this recent, a rollback of oil prices, these same measures are being used to defend anti-people policies like RVAT by saying the dole-outs were made possible through this regressive form of taxation. Lately, ill-prescribed conditionalities such as oil deregulation were also being defended while preaching the “good news” of economic palliatives.
Accurately speaking, economic palliatives will only serve as impediments to the development of genuine solutions to the crisis.  It will also drain our country of much-needed resources while promoting patronage politics among “rulers” and dependence on dole-outs among the “ruled.”

The Bankruptcy of Neo-liberalism: The Illegitimacy of Capitalist Hegemony

These days, it is becoming fashionable to blame every imaginable wrongdoing to the Arroyo regime. Although this government is culpable for many of our current socioeconomic ills and will surely pay for all its shortcomings and crimes to the people, we must not discount the fact that the current economic model as preached and promoted by this regime is equally to blame.

As fast as the Arroyo regime was stripped of its “superb economic management, capitalism and its latest stage, neo-liberalism are suffering from a dual crisis of legitimacy and viability. The current economic crisis is not only a product of Mrs. Arroyo’s pure economic misgovernance, more importantly; it is the result of the global crisis of contemporary capitalism.

Due to the chronic crisis of overproduction of capitalism, for the last 25 years, capitalism was overrun by the massive expansion of the unproductive sectors of the capitalist economy resulting to the international liberalization of finance. This ushered in the golden age of what we know as neo-liberal globalization. So to speak, we are currently under the epoch of less and less production and more and more of fictitious capital governed by the unproductive forces. Real capitalism has just gone unreal.

The end result, for the last 25 years or so, the capitalist system ran under fictitious capital, capital that is not real because it is not based on profits made by the productive forces (workers) but the result of squeezing profit and extra value from existing profits without the benefit of producing new value. In due time it collapsed as established by the recent United States’ nightmarish subprime crisis which eventually turned into a global financial calamity which sooner or later exacerbated the already exploding oil and food crises. Truly, as Marx said: “the barrier to capital is capital itself.”

Patriotic Responsibility and the Class Role of the Revolutionary Agent

Funny as it may seem, this analysis is being shared by the Arroyo regime, at the same time, remaining loyal capitalist apologists. Her economic managers argue that it is unfair to blame the government for the multiple economic crises as the problem is an international phenomenon suffered by all nations. Yet, while this line of argument is convincing to the untrained and unsuspecting, it is escapist as it absolves itself of any responsibility and flimsy as it stands on clay.

It assumes that capitalist globalization is by itself a supra-state, the last government standing, the destroyer of nation-states. However, the truth of the matter, governments did not diminish under the “open regime” of globalization. In fact, they remained major players, enforcers and parties of the current capitalist model. WTO, IMF, World Bank, the G8 and many more capitalist instruments are all products of governments.

Thus, the local elites of developing nations using reactionary governments are the principal enforcers for the production and reproduction of capitalism.

For this reason, the role of Mrs. Arroyo in this unending economic nightmare is clear. Hence, the ouster of the bogus Arroyo government is an imperative. The economic crunch felt by many Filipinos must be transformed into a direct political crisis confronting the illegitimacy of the Arroyo regime.

However, the immediate ouster of this regime will not essentially guarantee fundamental and radical changes. A simple ouster will not fundamentally rock the foundations of capital. That’s why it must be stressed that the Oust Gloria struggle is a patriotic duty of all Filipino citizens sick and tired of this regime. Conversely, a patriotic duty not only calling for its ouster but more importantly, pushing for a new and democratic government of the true sovereign-the masses.

This is where the political accord of the patriotic duty of the broad and the class role of the revolutionary agent must be stressed.  We call for the establishment of a Transitional Revolutionary Government (TRG) which will break the back of elite rule, widen and institutionalize democratize space and build the necessary impetus for an uncompromising political revolution-a socialist revolution of the working people-the revolutionary agent which can send capitalism to its graveyard with the solidarity and participation of the broad masses.

Dislodge the Old, Create the New: Build the Conditions for a Socialist Revolution

What we are witnessing perhaps is the slow demise of neo-liberalism and the continuing decomposition of global capitalism. More than ever, we maintain, no amount of self-rectification and creativeness will save capitalism from its inevitable total collapse. In the final analysis, the global capitalist crisis can only be best understood through socialist analysis. The same thing that it can only be fundamentally resolved through socialist solutions.

Therefore, let us turn the crisis into a revolutionary opportunity. Now is the best time that the contradictions of capitalism are best exposed to the masses; A time of crisis of capitalism in the recent history that can be easily understood by the masses-a crisis that threatens the very lives of the people from the worst effects of neo liberalism on the economy, gender, environment, culture and lives of every individual. Let us build the conditions to create the new society of the new people. Let us abandon the old, build the new and usurp the future.

Let’s start with the Arroyo regime. Let us finish the Arroyo regime.

End the Crisis! Oust Gloria!
Establish the Transitional Revolutionary Government!
For a Socialist Philippines! For a Socialist World!

July 28, 2008

Wakasan ang Elitistang Paghahari!

Itayo ang Gobyerno ng Mamamayan at Hindi ng Iilan!

Umaalingawngaw ang sigaw ng taong bayan. Sobra na! Tama na! Palitan na! People Power Na!

Bilang na ang oras ni Gloria sa Malacañang. Sa pagpapatalsik kay GMA, dapat na tiyakin na magiging hakbang ito para ganap na wakasan ang paghahari ng iilan. Hindi dapat matapos sa pagpapatalsik kay GMA ang laban. Bagkus, ito ay isang hakbang para sa tuloy-tuloy na pakikibaka ng sambayanan para sa ganap na katarungan at kaunlaran sa ating bayan.

Ugat ng krisis: Paghahari ng Iilan

Titiyakin ng mga kapwa niya elitista, kasabwat ang Estados Unidos, na kung mapalitan man si Gloria ay maipagpapatuloy ng papalit sa kanya ang mga kasalukuyang patakarang pang ekonomiyang pumapabor sa interes ng mga malalaking negosyante at dayuhang kapital. Ganito ang nangyari noong Edsa 1 at 2. Kaya imbes na guminhawa, lalong naghirap ang nakararaming Pilipino. Huwag tayong pumayag na ito’y maulit.

Bagamat malaking problema ang korapsyon sa pamahalaan-na siya ngayong mitsa ng krisis pampulitikang kinakaharap ni Gloria- alalahanin natin na hindi lamang ito ang dahilan ng pampulitika at pang-ekonomiyang krisis na patuloy na nagpapahairap sa nakararaming Pilipino.

Pabor sa iilan ang patuloy na pag-iral ng neoliberal na patakaran ng globalisasyon- liberalisasyon , pribatisasyon at deregulasyon ng ating ekonomiya. Sa liberalisasyon ay tiba-tiba ang mga importer ng mga produkto mula sa ibang bansa habang bumabagsak naman ang mga lokal na kapitalista at industriya. Sa pribatisasyon ay nagkakamal ng yaman ang mga kapitalistang kakutsaba ng mga nasa pamahalaan upang magpatakbo ng mga batayang serbisyo tulad ng kuryente, tubig, ospital, paaralan, transportasyon telekomunikasyon at iba pa kung saan ay pangunahing apektado ang mga maralita sa lungsod at kanayunan, mga kabataan at mga kababaihan. Sa pagbebenta ng mga ari-arian ng gobyerno ay patuloy ang demolisyon sa mga maralitang tagalungsod upang bigyang daan ang mga proyekto ng gobyerno.

Pabor sa iilan ang patuloy na pag-asa sa pangungutang sa mga dayuhan bilang estratehiyang pang ekonomiya. Dahil dito ay patuloy na lolobo ang mga ilehitimong utang – mga utang na hindi kinakailangan at may bahid ng korapsyon at anomalya. Isa lamang ang ZTE deal sa napakaraming kaso ng ilehitimong utang tulad ng CyberEducation deal, Northrail and Southrail Project, BNPP, at marami pang iba. Sa patuloy na pag utang ay mas patuloy na nabubundat ang tiyan ng iilan habang ang mamamayan ang pumapasan ng pagbabayad sa mga naturang utang. Halos 70% ng badyet ng pamahalaan ang napupunta lamang sa pagbabayad ng utang. Ngayong taong ito lamang ay magbabayad tayo ng 623 Bilyong Piso sa interes at prinsipal ng ating utang na umaabot na sa halos 4 Trilyong Piso!

Pabor pa rin sa iilan na manatili ang patakaran ng kontraktwalisasyon sa pagtatrabaho at ipako sa mababang halaga ang sahod ng mga manggagawa upang mas malaki ang kita ng mga kapitalista; ang patuloy na mataas na presyo ng bilihin; ang mababang presyo ng mga lokal na produktong agrikultural habang patuloy sa pagpapapasok ng mga dayuhang produkto wala o mababang taripa at quota.

Pagpapatalsik kay Gloria: Isang Hakbang tungo sa Sosyalismo ng Sambayanan

Ang tunay na kaunlaran ng Pilipinas ay mangyayari lamang kung ang nakararaming mamamayan ay may mapagpasyang  boses at kontrol sa pagdedesisyon sa mga patakarang pang ekonomiya at pampulitika ng ating bansa. Isang lipunan na ang gobyerno ay prayoridad ang paghahatid ng batayang serbisyo at pagpapaunlad ng lokal na ekonomiya. Isang lipunan na ang mga manggagawa ang nagpapasya sa produksyon, direktang namamahala ng mga pagawaan at nakikinabang sa kita ng pabrika o industriya; libre and edukasyon serbisyong pangkalusugan at iba pang esensyal na serbisyo; patakarang panlabas na malaya sa dikta at kontrol ng mga dayuhan; may sapat at disenteng trabaho para sa lahat; may epektibong boses sa pamamahala at pakinabang ang lahat ng kasarian, edad, o etnikong grupo sa yaman ng bansa.  Ito ang diwa ng sosyalismong Pilipino. Ito ang pangarap na dapat sama-sama nating itaguyod at mapagtagumpayan.

Alam nating sa ngayon ay pangarap pa rin ito at hindi ito mangyayari sa kagyat na  mapatalsik sa poder si GMA. Ito ay isang patuloy na pakikibaka. At ang pagpapatalsik kay GMA ay isang hakbang tungo dito. Iwasto na natin ang kamalian ng Edsa 1 at 2. Dapat na tayong matuto. Ang palitan ay ang sistema. Hindi lang ang namumuno. Neo-liberal , kapitalista at elitistang sistema ang problema. Sistema ang baguhin- kung nais natin ng tunay na pagbabago.

Alternatibo sa Krisis ng Pamamahala: Gobyerno ng Mamamayan

Matunog ang pangalan ni Noli de Castro bilang konstitusyunal na kahalili ni Gloria. Siya ang gusto ni Cory at mga negosyante, maging ng U.S.Wala daw bahid ng korapsyon. Wala namang sapat na kakayahan upang mamuno at tiyak na neoliberalismo din ang itataguyod nitong mga patakaran.

Hindi rin dapat balewalain ang interes ng mga maka-kanang Heneral sa  AFP upang isalba ang krisis na ito mula sa oposisyon at mga progresibong grupo sa pamamagitan ng kudeta. Panunupil at pandarahas ang tiyak na magiging resulta ng isang rehimeng militar kayat dapat na ilantad at itakwil ang ganitong maniobra.

Samantala, ang  mga tradisyunal na pulitikong (trapo) tulad nila Villar, Roxas, Legarda, De Castro, Gordon, Bayani,  at iba pa ay kanya-kanyang pagpapasikat na ang ginagawa ngayon pa lang upang makaungos sa visibility at name recall para sa eleksyong 2010. Si Jose de Venecia naman ay walang kredibilidad na manawagan ng pagpapatalsik kay Gloria dahil bistado namang kaya lamang siya bumaligtad ay dahil hindi sila nakinabang sa ZTE at “inilaglag” na siya ng administrasyon.

Ayaw na natin sa trapo. Panahon na ng pagbabago.  Dapat nating isulong na itayo ang isang transisyunal na gobyerno na bubuuin ng batayang sektor at mga progresibong lider. Maraming lider na may kakayanang mamuno sa atin na hindi pulitiko. Ito ang dapat ipalit sa kasalukuyang rehimen at kagyat na maglunsad ng mga repormang elektoral at pulitikal;  mga programang kagyat na iibsan ang hirap ng mga Pilipino; at unti-unting babaklasin ang mga patakarang neo-liberal at anti-mamamayan.

Panahon na upang angkinin ng mamamayan ang kapangyarihan. Hindi natin dapat hintayin ang simbahan o mga sikat na lider upang manawagan ng pagbabago. Tayo ang nakakadama-mga ordinaryong empleyado, manggagawa, mga kababaihan, mga walang trabaho, estudyante at kabataan, magbubukid, propesyunal at maliliit na negosyante. Tayo ang dapat mangunang kumilos-para sa ating mga anak at susunod na henerasyon.  Nasa atin ang bilang. Nasa atin ang lakas.  Makiiisa,  lumahok  at  manindigan upang:

• Patalsikin ang Gahaman, Magnanakaw at Abusadong Rehimen!
• Itayo ang Gobyerno ng Mamamayan!
• Patuloy na makibaka para sa Sosyalismo ng Sambayanang Pilipino!

BUKLURAN SA IKAUUNLAD NG SOSYALISTANG ISIP AT GAWA (BISIG) – Laban ng Masa

Pebrero 29, 2008 / Lungsod ng Makati

http://filipinosocialism.wordpress.com  / email: bisig_natl@yahoo.com

Korapsyon, kasakiman, kasamaan ng kasalukuyang gobyerno ni GMA wakasan na!

Grabe na ang korapsyon! Mula ng maluklok sa kapangyarihan ang “president evil’ na si GMA noong 2001, wala ng tigil ang pangungurakot. Ang pinakahuli sa serye ng lantarang pagnanakaw ay ang ZTE-NBN deal at may kadobol pang ‘Cyber-Education Project’.

Grabe na ang kasakiman! Ang 6 na bilyong pisong kurakot na itinakda ni FG Mike Arroyo at COMELEC Chair Abalos sa ZTE-NBN deal ay ang pinakamataas na halaga sa kasaysayan ng pagnanakaw sa bayan na babayaran ng mamamayan. Lumikha ito ng katakut-takot na pamba-braso; pananakot sa mga medyo tumututol at lagayan naman sa taginting ng milyong piso sa mga tahimik lang. Sobra na ang pagsa-salaula sa atin, sobra na ang pagturing sa atin na mga bulag at walang pakialam sa ginagawa nilang garapal na pangungurakot.

Grabe na ang kasamaan! Upang pagtakpan ang lahat ng ginagawang pagnanakaw, nagpapatupad si GMA ng mga ‘executive order’ at ‘presidential proclamation’ na pumipigil sa sama-samang pagkilos ng mamamayan at pagbale-wala sa mga demokratikong proseso na napagtagumpayan na ng taumbayan mula sa paglaban sa diktadura at ang pinaka-malala ay ang pagpatay, pagdukot at pagkulong sa mga tumutuligsa sa kasamaan ng gobyernong ito.

Sa kasalukuyan, nalampasan na ni Gloria ang korapsyon, kasakiman at kasamaan ng lahat ng mga elitistang namuno sa nakaraan, mula kay Marcos, Cory, FVR at Erap. Sobra na talaga.

Pero, ang lahat ng sobra ay may hangganan. Ang pagbubulag-bulagan at pagsasa-walang-kibo ay may katapusan.

Sa serye ng mga imbestigasyon na isinagawa ng Senado ay unti-unting nabuksan ang lihim ng pinaka-matinding kurakot. Mula kay Joey de Venecia na naglantad sa ‘back-off’ na pananakot ni FG, kay Sec. Romy Neri na ibinuko ang bribery attempt ni Chairman Abalos (‘Sec may 200 ka dito’ ) at ang nagpapatuloy na salaysay ng isang probinsyanong intsik na si Jun Lozada na nagsabing US$130M (P6B) ang gustong ipatong sa halaga ng ZTE-NBN project at pati na rin sa habilin sa kanya ni Sec Neri na ‘moderate your greed’ patungkol kay GMA, FG at Abalos.

Aminado naman ang mga kumikibo at naglalantad sa mga balak ng mga masasamang tao sa Palasyo na hindi sila mga anghel at may bahid din ng dumi pero hindi na nila kayang tiisin ang pinaka-grabeng tangkang pagnanakaw na ito. Ang 6 na bilyong piso ay maaaring budget na gamitin sa libong classroom para mapaunlad ang kalidad ng ating edukasyon. Pwede rin itong ipagpatayo ng libong health centers at malagyan ng mga doctor, narses at gamot para sa mga karaniwang karamdaman upang paunlarin ang kalagayan ng kalusugan maging sa pinaka-liblib na komunidad. Maaari ring ilagay sa livelihood program at serbisyo sa patubig at kuryente sa mga mahihirap na komunidad at marami pang iba na magtataas sa kalagayang makatao nating mga Pilipino.

Nagkakaisa na ang Mamamayan! Ito na ang Panahon! Sama na! Kilos na!

Nagsimula na ang mga pagkilos, umuugong na ang panawagan mula sa karaniwang mamamayan, maging sa mararangal na tao at organisasyon at pilit na pinag-iinit ng mga nasa elitistang oposisyon ang sigaw na tama na. Gloria, alis na!

Ang patutunguhan ng kasalukuyang krisis-pulitikal ni Gloria ay maaaring magtuldok sa matagal nang kwestyon ng pagiging iligal niyang pangulo o kaya naman ay pumihit sa mas higit na panunupil at malalang korapsyon, kasakiman at kasamaan kung malalampasan ni Gloria ang nagbabantang bagyo.

Ang CBCP ay nanawagan na ng ‘communal action’ na sa kanilang depinisyon ay ibang tipo ng pipol power –kaiba sa EDSA 2 na nagluwal ng pinaka-masamang presidente sa kasaysayan ng Pilipinas. Nagtakda na sila ng lingguhang misa sa iba’t-ibang simbahang katoliko kasama ang Catholic Educators Association of the Phlippines (CEAP), samahan ng mga eskwelahang pagmamay-ari ng simbahang katoliko na noong EDSA 2 ay gumampan ng malaking papel sa mobilisasyon ng kabataang estudyante. Ang Makati Business Club ay sumuporta na rin sa isang malaking rali na ginananap sa Makati na dinaluhan ng mga religious groups at mga progresibong grupo kasama tayo. Ang mga grupo ng mga sundalo at pulis ay patuloy na nagpapahayag na ng diskuntento.

Maging ang media ay napaka-kritikal na kay Gloria, dahil sila rin ay biktima ng lumalalang panunupil sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag.

Sa lahat ng nangyayaring ito, ang malaking tanong ay kung ano ang magiging pasya ng mamamayan.

Alam natin na kung mapatalsik si GMA ay posibleng katulad niyang elitistang pulitiko din ang kagyat na pumalit. Pero hindi tayo tanga. Natuto na tayo sa nagdaang Edsa 1 at Edsa 2. Tayo ang nagtanim, nagbayo at nagsaing subalit mga elitista ang kumain. Hindi na dapat maulit ito. Patuloy nating isusulong ang pakikibaka para sa isang gobyerno ng taumbayan.

Kaya’t kami ay nananawagan sa lahat ng mga Pilipinong may malasakit sa ating bansa, may malasakit sa kinabukasan ng ating mga anak. We deserve a better future and a better Philippines. Ang desisyon ay nasa atin. Tapusin na natin ang pagiging biktima ng korapsyon, kasakiman at kasamaan ng gobyernong ito. Lumahok at Makiisa sa mga Kilos Protesta!

Manindigan! Gloria Alis Na!

Sobra na! Tama na! Kilos na!

Kapangyarihan sa mamamayan, Gobyerno ng Taumbayan Itayo!

Bukluran sa Ikauunlad ng Sosyalistang Isip at Gawa (BISIG) ● Lakas at Ugnayan ng mga Maralita Laban sa Kahirapan (LUMABAN KA) ● Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Kabataan (ALYANSA) ● Movement for the Advancement of Student Power (MASP) ● Student Council Alliance of the Philippines (SCAP) ● Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa Kanayunan (PKSK)

by Randy David

Taos-pusong pagbati sa ating lahat sa ika-sampung anibersaryo ng Akbayan. Sa mga panahong tulad ng kasalukuyan, maituturing nang isang malaking tagumpay para sa isang party-list group na manatiling tapat sa kaniyang mga simulain, at makapagdiwang ng isang dekada ng pag-iral. Hindi biro ang mga pagsubok na dinaanan ng Akbayan. At di na marahil kailangan pang sabihin na lalong hindi biro ang mga hamong haharapin nito sa mga susunod pang sampung taon. Ang pananatili ng isang bagong partidong ideyolohikal na tulad ng Akbayan ay isang imposibilidad na maaari lamang isagawa bilang bahagi ng isang malakas at kolektibong pagkukusa – “a collective act of will.” Nais kong paksain ang bagay na ito ngayong umaga.

The paradox of new politics is that, in theory, it is perhaps the only type of politics that can offer us any hope of survival in the modern world. And yet, at the same time, in a transitional society like ours, its practice seems to offer little promise or meaning unless it compromises with traditional politics, or plays second fiddle to revolutionary politics.

To make this point clearer, let us go into some preliminary definitions.

We can distinguish the various forms of politics by their goals and methods.

Traditional politics aims to preserve the existing order of society — its inherited hierarchies, and inviolable norms — as signified by the unexamined fixation with the rule of law. Its methods are well-known – the fostering of dependence and patronage through the exploitation of customary norms like utang na loob or debt of gratitude, elitist paternalistic rule that combines benevolence with calibrated intimidation, obsession with consensus and disdain for free debate, the unaccountable disposition of public wealth, and the unchecked exercise of public power.

At the other end of the spectrum, revolutionary politics dreams of completely overhauling the existing social order through the imposition of a new political-legal order that seeks to regulate nearly every aspect of social life. The emphasis, almost invariably, is the creation of a strong State as an overarching mechanism of utopian societal engineering, of economic growth, and of social redistribution. Its accompanying methods are equally well-known: armed struggle and/or the capture or enlistment of the armed forces of the existing State, revolutionary upheaval, full deployment of the State’s security forces to crush dissent at least in the immediate period following the seizure of power, and the excessive reliance on the regulatory powers of the State to maintain societal stability.

In contrast to these two poles, new politics aims to reform institutions and revise existing routines and procedures in accordance with the demands and pressures for change that are already manifest in society, careful not to embark on comprehensive programs of transformation that cannot be sustained by the existing objective conditions. Its thrust is thus more evolutionary than revolutionary, more to strengthen the foundations on which to build the new, than to invent something new from nothing. Its immediate objective is to end mass poverty and public ignorance as a condition for the progressive democratization and modernization of society. Its favored instruments are: non-violent resistance through the creation of autonomous social movements and people’s organizations, the formation of self-sustaining electoral parties with clear ideologies and programs, debates and open fora in mass media, social critique, mass mobilizations centering on clear-minded advocacies, and community organizing for popular empowerment at all levels of society.

In all transitional situations, the problem has always been how to build something different from what already exists, while avoiding assimilation by conservative forces. Herein lies the paradox of new politics. The temptation to make peace with the old order is very strong because of the perks and resources being offered by the latter. Similarly, the temptation to adopt the romantic promise of revolutionary politics remains potent because of the moral and ideological purity it seems to represent.

I am aware of the danger of extrapolating new norms of practice from ideal-type definitions like these. Reality is extremely complex and dynamic. Changes in social conditions accumulate faster than our ability to grasp or describe them in ways that allow us to move forward. The dilemmas to which I refer here can be seen in the practical day-to-day problems faced by individuals who have taken upon themselves the role of new politicians and have actually won public positions. Much can be learned from the situations they have had to deal with once they assumed power.

As a case in point, I wish to share with you my preliminary analysis of the situation that the priest-turned-politician, Gov. Ed Panlilio of Pampanga, has had to contend with from day one of his term. I believe that Among Ed’s predicament gives us a fairly good idea of the fate that awaits new politics in a transitional society like ours.

Let me start by saying that every political system in its current state has its own code of morality, its own mode of legitimation, its own acceptable procedures for settling disputes and using power, its own routines and standard communications – all of which are rooted in the structural principles of the society in which it is embedded. Traditional politics, as I have characterized it here, thrives in highly stratified societies based on unequal distribution of life chances. Here, political roles tend to be integrated into networks and layers of of patron-client relationships.

Societies undergoing the wrenching transition to modernity are witnessing the gradual collapse of these hierarchies. But the collapse does not automatically lead to democratization; in many instances, it only paves the way for the entry of new forces based on different value systems. For example, the exit of landed families from the political stage has not paved the way for the entry of professional politicians from modern political parties. It has only created space for moneyed individuals like jueteng lords created by a gambling economy, or celebrities projected by the modern mass media. In some societies, the demise of military rule did not spell the end of authoritarianism; it only paved the way for the entry of new authoritarian leaders riding on the crest of religious fundamentalism. Clearly, the transition to political modernity can be intercepted by new forms of authoritarian rule. This is what can happen in situations where the remnants of a beleaguered traditional order attempt to salvage their rule by establishing a national security State that is justified by the war on terrorism – a scenario that is slowly emerging in our country.

Among Ed Panlilio was thrust into the position of governor in a province that had already made the transition from rule by the landed elite to rule by the new moneyed elite – the gambling lords and the movie celebrities. This transition was shallow however. It did not change the rules and methods of traditional politics; it only recruited new players. It was to this political reality that the educated middle classes of Pampanga were reacting when they launched a campaign to oppose the candidacies of both Lilia Pineda, wife of the reputed jueteng lord Bong Pineda, and Mark Lapid, the movie-actor son of the movie celebrity and now senator Lito Lapid. In their despair, they searched for a moral figure who could symbolize the quest for good governance, on the premise that the corruption in the governance of the province was due in large measure to the moral weakness of previous governors. Both Lapid and Pineda were known to be staunch allies of President Arroyo, and it would have been logical to find somebody who was not just anti-Pineda and anti-Lapid but also anti-Arroyo. But Pampanga’s middle classes chose to be blind in their assessment of the presidency of their cabalen, Mrs. Arroyo. It became politically convenient, as a result, to find an apolitical alternative. Among Ed fitted that important criterion very well. As a parish priest, he was a moral shepherd, active in the social projects of the province but inactive, or at least perceived to be neutral, insofar as national politics was concerned. This made him a viable third candidate, a dark horse in a desperate political landscape.

The quixotic nature of his entry into Pampanga’s politics – running without a party and without a slate – made Among Ed, the parish priest, a natural magnet for those who could only think of a moral solution to the province’s manifold problems. It was an uphill and lopsided battle but the dark horse won by the slimmest margin over the wife of Bong Pineda. The votes were split three-ways, a phenomenon that ultimately worked for Among Ed.

Given the extraordinary circumstances that attended Among Ed’s heroic victory, it is easy to overestimate the value of moral ascendancy in politics and to overlook the dynamics of the existing political culture. Among Ed’s religious identity proved to be a successful vehicle in the quest for the highest post in the provincial government, but it has failed to work the same miracle in governance itself. Indeed, one can even say that he and his team became captives of the moral rhetoric that allowed them to launch an effective campaign. He is governor but he is unable to govern. He has to contend the other elected officials of the province – the barangay captains, the town councilors and mayors, and the members of the provincial board. He has to find a way to work with these public officials – who were on the “wrong” side of the moral-political divide in the last election.

The political realities of the province have quickly caught up with the new governor. His being a priest has given him an edge in dealing with his fellow public officials, but it has not elicited for him the same deference it commands when dealing with a parish. The provincial board, acting as a provincial legislative body, has refused to confirm the appointments he has made. They have failed to pass the budget of the province. He could not get projects done at the level of the municipalities because of the non-cooperation or outright hostility of the mayors. About the only ally he seems to be able to count on is the mayor of the capital town San Fernando, Oscar Rodriguez. The groups that spontaneously got together, worked, and spent for his campaign are not part of an organized political force, nor have they been formed into one. Indeed some of them have begun to express disenchantment at the slow pace of the reform process and the confusion that seems to attend the affairs of the governor’s office. One can imagine how much this depresses Among Ed, and he has been in office for only six months.

Here then is a new politician with a vision, who, against all expectations, has won a position. If he wishes to govern and make limited use of the prerogatives of his office in order to serve the people of Pampanga, notably the poor, he must get the support, no matter how grudging, of the other public officials – who, not surprisingly, were all elected according to the same old norms of political patronage. They want to get their hands on the resources of patronage on which their political roles feed. Among Ed has refused to release any public money to their persons because of his firm commitment to institutional and accountable governance. As a result, all their recent moves have been focused on removing from the governor’s office the powers of disbursement.

Two choices are immediately open to Among Ed. First, he can adopt a flexible approach and try very hard to work within the existing political realities. He can remind himself of the original definition of politics – i.e. the art of compromise. He can give in to the demands of the trapos, in exchange for support on the programs that matter to him – without any illusion that he can reform their ways. I call this political realism.

Or, he can wage a war of attrition against the old political culture and the individuals that defend it at every turn, risking a permanent political stalemate till the end of his 3-year term. In this, he can surely count on the support of the national media, like the Inquirer which has championed his heroic cause. If he chooses this path, he will surely be crucified by his antagonists in Pampanga, but in so doing he may succeed in catalyzing the formation of a nationwide citizen’s movement to end the reign of traditional politics. I would call this political idealism.

Whether Among Ed chooses the first or the second path, a clear-minded political activist might remind him at once about the necessity of organizing a stable political constituency that can push forward through the electoral process the cause of enduring social reform. The moral shepherd has to become a modern professional politician. This is not going to be easy in a culture that has fostered a great dependence on politicians yet at the same time has ironically cultivated a deep cynicism for politics. Our perpetual search for messiahs and charismatic leaders betrays a misunderstanding of the requirements of modern politics. Stuck in the vague generalities of moral language, we do not understand what it means to make use of the ways of politics to reform society.

I want to be clear about what I mean by this. To politically organize our people does not mean just being able to herd them for mass actions and street mobilizations. It means rather tapping and strengthening their will to participate in governance by providing them with the skills necessary for modern politics – i.e., to be able to manage town hall meetings at every level of the polity, to be able to speak intelligently about issues and policies, to be able to make decisions, and draw systematic plans and programs. In short, everything that has to do with the formation of political leaders suitable to a modern democracy. Max Weber’s advice to his fellow Germans at the turn of the 20^th century is appropriate to our own time: “Only the orderly guidance of the masses by responsible politicians can break the irregular rule of the street and the leadership of demagogues of the moment.” (p. 395, From Max Weber, 1970)

Just as I cannot presume to tell Among Ed which path he should take, I will not presume to tell Akbayan how it should conduct itself in the next ten years. But one thing is important – no matter which direction we choose, we must be clear about our goals. We must be clear about the measure of our success. We must continue attracting and organizing others around our goals, and we must ask ourselves constantly whether we are making any progress on these goals – without ever forgetting that the first objective of an electoral party is to get elected. Finally, let me say in closing it would do us no harm if we learned to pause every now and then, if only to ask how this whole experience is changing us and what else we need to do in order to become what we set out to be – truly a party of hope.

January 27th 2008, by Kiraz Janicke – Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas, January 27, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The 6th Summit of the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America (ALBA), a joint Venezuelan-Cuban initiative based on fair trade as an alternative to the U.S.-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas, concluded in Caracas on Saturday with the founding of a new Bank of ALBA and the signing of a series of economic and social agreements between the member nations. The Dominica also became the newest country to join the regional fair trade bloc.

Commenting on the launch of the new financial institution, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said that it breaks with capitalist concepts and is a political instrument for social and economic development.

ALBA, “as its name indicates, is an alternative to the global capitalist model, a concept of a geo-economic, geopolitical, social, cultural and ideological space that is in construction,” he added.

Chavez also emphasized the importance of the incorporation of the Dominica into ALBA. saying, “despite the globalized media bombardment… it shows that an alternative continues growing and consolidating itself.”

In the face of this initiative, the Free Trade Area of the Americas proposed by the United States, “is a cadaver,” Venezuela’s Ambasador to Cuba, Ali Rodriguez Arraque commented.

With initial financing of more than $1 billion, the Bank of ALBA, aims to promote projects of economic integration and infrastructural development as well as progress in social, educational, cultural and health programs in the member nations. It also aims to eliminate the economic weaknesses of these countries and eradicate economic asymmetries as a result of the process of financial globalization Venezuelan economist, Jesús Faría explained.

Unlike other financial institutions such as the World Bank or the IMF, the Bank of ALBA will not impose loan conditions and will function based on consensus of all members. The summit agreed to a two tier mechanism for democratic decision making in the Bank, a Ministerial Council and an Executive Direction, with a rotating presidency of the member nations.

Also attending the summit were presidents Evo Morales (Bolivia); Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua); vicepresident of Cuba, Carlos Lage; Prime Ministers, Roosevelt Skerrit of Dominica; Baldwin Spencer of Antigua and Barbuda; and Dr. Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, as well as representatives of Ecuador; San Cristóbal and Nieves; Honduras; Haití; and Uruguay.

Referring to the economic crisis in the United States, Lage stressed the importance of the unity of the peoples and the formation of the Bank of ALBA, saying that Latin America should prepare itself for a “post-dollar and multi-polar world” with institutions and markets less dependent on the United States.

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega also spoke of the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and made a call to industrialized and developed countries to “cease with the capitalist model” that every day weakens the planet. “The capitalist model is exhausted, it is unsustainable,”he said.

ALBA delegate and Minister for the Social Investment Fund in Nicaragua, Nelson Artola, said that through agreements signed in the framework of ALBA, “the supply of oil by Venezuela has allowed us to attend to the energy emergency that Nicaragua inherited from 16 years of neoliberal governments that left blackouts and chaos in the national economy.”

Nicaragua and Venezuela also signed an accord for cooperation in social programs, including the construction of eight Centers for Child Development in Nicaragua as the beginning of a program to reintegrate the country’s 47,000 street kids.

The three day summit involved a series of meetings, including the Political Commission of ALBA, the Finance Ministers of ALBA, the Technical Financial Commission of the Bank of ALBA, a meeting of ALBA Ministers, as well as a summit of social movements from the member nations.

In addition to the formation of the Bank of ALBA, the leaders of Bolivia, Cuba, the Dominica, Nicaragua and Venezuela, signed a political declaration in which they announced their support for Bolivia and its process of democratic changes.

They also ratified a plan to promote cultural exchange through the creation of “ALBA Houses,” which Jose González, president of the ALBA House in Caracas said, “will serve as centers for creativity, artists, cultural promoters, social movements – to generate a movement that allows the knowledge of values that at times are not recognized because the mechanisms of the market are not interested in them.”

Other agreements for security and food sovereignty among the member countries and the proposal to form an ALBA energy company were also made.

The closing act of the 6th ALBA Summit was held in the Latin American School of Medicine, where for the past six months 395 students from Latin America and the Carribean have been studying an introductory course on Medical Science as part of the educational program of ALBA.

We deplore the arrest of Jose Ma. Sison. The self-righteous glee of the National Security Adviser in his TV appearance exposed the sinister involvement of the Arroyo administration in this sordid affair.

The use of deception, solitary confinement, and denial of medication are standard practices in the Philippines under Marcos and Arroyo. We are alarmed over reports that the Dutch authorities, too, applied these methods on Sison.

It is sad if the Dutch authorities today abandon their country’s proud tradition of providing refuge to persecuted political dissenters. They now seem to fall into the hypocritical schemes of Arroyo and Bush in the so-called “war on terror.” While pretending to respect human rights, Arroyo allows extra-judicial killings and disappearances of activists and legitimate critics. While railing against international terrorism, Bush supports the Florida-based gangs who continue to commit terrorist attacks against the people of Cuba.

Laban ng Masa has condemned the murders of Rolly Kintanar and Art Tabara. We fully understand the desire of the widows of Kintanar and Tabara to seek justice for their husbands.

We expect the Dutch authorities to respect the rights of Jose Ma. Sison, including his personal and health needs, and hope that his arrest and detention will not just be part of the pattern of threats and harassment instigated by the Arroyo and Bush governments

Statement of Unity

23 August 2007

It is not Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV on trial today. The Senator has already been vindicated by the vote of the people.

On the docks today is the prevailing political system, dubiously dubbed as a “democracy” but incapacitated by the tyranny under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has ravaged the nation’s democratic process with corruption of the electoral process and its tribunals, which the people overcame to elect against all odds placed before their choice, and elected Senator Trillanes.

Having lost in all efforts to defeat Senator Trillanes’ offer of hope for the nation, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo now obstructs the road to the fulfillment of the people’s victory in Senator Trillanes’ success and barricades his road to the Senate with blatant and transparent legal gobbledygook.

This manifesto calls for enforcing the people’s will for Senator Trillanes to serve as their duly elected representative. This call is addressed to all citizens of the Republic and all those in positions of authority still in possession of their moral capacity to stand up and act for the survival of genuine democracy in our country and against the barefaced transgressions of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

We call on all the people to take action to revive our democracy and restore our national will and vitality for sovereignty, democracy and justice so that the re-establishment of an era of progress, peace and prosperity may begin for our people.

We are launching the Trillanes, Paglingkurin! movement to galvanize all democracy- loving citizens into action and force the ruling tyranny to yield to the people’s expressed will and surrender to the inevitable – letting Senator Trillanes serve.

We are taking action to synergize all the active and latent energies and forces towards the realization, fulfillment and fruition of genuine, living, popular and nationalist democracy: The people know best and genuine democracy brings out the best from the people.

Let this be the beginning of the final offensive for the victory of genuine and living democracy in the Land.

Demokrasya Totohanin: Senador Trillanes Paglingkurin!

True Democracy Now: Let Senator Trillanes Serve!

Join the “Trillanes, Paglingkurin! Movement”

January 25, 2005
By Walden Bello

(Speech at Karangalan 2005, Cultural Center of the Philippines , January 21, 2005)

Walden Bello is a recipient of the Right Livelihood Award for 2003. He is professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines and executive director of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South.

I would like to thank the organizers of this event, particularly my co-awardee of the Right Livelihood Award for 2003, Nicky Perlas, for inviting me to speak at this event. Nicky’s optimism, as many of you know, is infectious, and I do hope all of us will be infected by it today.

I think our previous speakers have already alluded to the mood of dispiritedness that shrouds the country today. Perhaps more than at any other time, self doubt has become a chronic collective neurosis. For some the way out is to emigrate, an option that according to the polls is preferred by one out of five Filipinos. As has often been pointed out, once out of the national milieu, Filipinos do indeed excel, and one can hardly keep track of the numbers of Filipinos who have become prominent as entrepreneurs, professionals, NGO leaders, and intellectuals in their adopted countries. Yet one can never really leave the homeland. Even if one is a success abroad, one never really feels complete knowing about the collective failure at home. Many in my generation that left for the US in the late sixties and became successful in their fields do not relish retiring in California or Florida but are now seeking ways to contribute their skills to the task of collective upliftment of the nation.

Let me address the crisis of spirit in the Philippines by sharing a witty statement about China that I came across recently: ” China has had a few bad centuries, but it’s now back on its feet.” To be a Chinese from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century was to share in a communal spirit prone to despair and a sense of collective disintegration. To be Chinese at the beginning of the 21st century is to share in a sense of pride in a country that is not only back on its feet but well on the way to becoming an economic superpower.

I say this to underline the importance of having the long view, of putting our current travails, both material and spiritual, in perspective. We can say, similarly, that we Filipinos have had a few bad decades, but, don’t worry, we’ll get back on our feet. Why should we be this confident? Because at various times in the past, we not only pulled together but also became a shining example to the rest of the world.

Take the Revolution of 1896. This was the first modern national liberation movement in the whole of Asia, one that served as an inspiration to so many other peoples. Read the novels of Pramodya Ananta Toer on the making of modern Indonesia, and you will see how Rizal and Aguinaldo and our struggles against the Spanish and the Americans helped spark the nationalistic imagination of Indonesia. Go to Malaysia , and you will come across people, including former Malaysia Deputy Premier Anwar Ibrahim, who regard Rizal as the first giant figure in the making of the modern Malay consciousness.

Yet the Revolution was not our only “finest hour” as a nation. We also had the four years of tremendous collective sacrifice that brought together our country against the Japanese invaders. Then we had the 16 years of struggle against the Marcos dictatorship that climaxed with the first EDSA Revolution, which became an inspiring model of a largely nonviolent struggle based on people power for many other people in the world suffering under the yoke of dictatorships.

The causes of our discontent

Since EDSA I in 1986, the Philippines seems to have traveled steadily downhill. How could we have squandered such a golden opportunity to take a new course after the disaster that was the Marcos period? The answer, to paraphrase Shakespeare slightly, lies not in the stars nor in ourselves, but in our ever short-sighted elite. I think it is important to stress this, that our failures have less to do with our culture or our so-called personality as a nation but with the failure of the institutions and policies established by our national elite post-EDSA I to deliver both genuine democracy and development.

It is fashionable to denounce corruption at the top as the reason for our failures. Of course, we must condemn corruption, but it’s much too easy an explanation since there have been other countries, among them South Korea and China , that have had levels of corruption similar or even worse than the Philippines but have achieved impressive records of economic growth. We must do a more hard-nosed analysis of the structural causes of failure in order to forge a pathway out of it. Allow me to share some possible insights into our national failure over the last 19 years.

Some say that the promise of the post-EDSA I political and economic system was killed early on when President Corazon Aquino made two historic compromises. First, in protecting the family estate Hacienda Luisita, she failed to put her moral authority behind land reform, resulting in a land reform law with a thousand and one loopholes. Second, she chose to make repayment of the foreign debt the national economic priority, thus starving the country of the investment necessary for development. The combination of the lack of structural reform and capital starvation doomed the country to stagnation in the period 1986 to 2004.

President Fidel Ramos tried to take another path, that of triggering growth by liberalizing trade, deregulating the domestic economy, and privatizing state or state-run enterprises in line with neoliberal, free-market doctrine. Social reform was placed on the backseat, behind so-called market reforms. The Ramos saga ended with the financial crisis of 1997, which was brought about by the panicky exit of the speculative capital that Ramos’s technocrats had courted, precisely by eliminating many controls on their volatile movements and liberalizing the financial sector.

Lower class disaffection with conservative social and economic policies resulted in the election of Joseph Estrada. Estrada’s populism, however, transmogrified into a mafia capitalism in which the president became the apex of an engine of capital accumulation that linked the underworld and the state. The more established section of the elite allied itself with the middle class to overthrow Estrada and displace the new rich faction during EDSA 2. The disaffected nouveau riche tried to get back by riding the spontaneous lower-class anger at Estrada’s arrest during the aborted EDSA 3.

Under Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, all social reform initiatives were placed on the back burner, and development policy was reduced to a strategy of getting US aid and investment by allying the Philippines with Washington in the so-called War against Terror. The administration’s overriding preoccupation became that of getting Arroyo elected. After elections in which the opposition candidate Fernando Poe, Jr. was widely perceived as having been cheated of victory, the administration has been overtaken by a fiscal crisis and has had little to offer the country in the way of vision except more and more indebtedness to foreign banks.

It is important to provide this survey because if we talk about the Philippine crisis, we are saying that one of the causes is a failed democratic state, failed in the sense that over the last 18 years, what I have referred in other writings as the “EDSA State” has not lived up to its promise of being a mechanism of achieving more democracy but has been employed by our elite utilized mainly as a mechanism for succeeding one another in office, as an engine for personal and familial capital accumulation, and as a defense mechanism against comprehensive social reform.

The tragedy of market fundamentalism

But the institutional failure of the EDSA system is only one cause of our crisis. The other equally important source of disaster is the neoliberal or market fundamentalist policies that have been followed by EDSA administrations from Aquino to Macapagal. Over the last 19 years, we have had a revolution in the Philippines, in case you did not know it. But this has been a revolution that has come from the right, not the left. The vanguard of this revolution, which reached its apogee during the Ramos period, have been economists and technocrats who captured the highest reaches of the government, academe, and business, who were united in the belief that if you engaged in free trade, lowered tariffs, enacted more liberal conditions to attract foreign capital, and reduced governmental regulation of the economy, the result would be growth, prosperity, and the end of inequality. Let the market rule – this was the battle cry of the neoliberal revolution that reached its climactic point during the presidency of Fidel Ramos.

So confident were our technocrats that they not only pushed us to join the WTO but also adopted a radical tariff reform program that would bring down tariffs over 10 years to 1%-5%.

The result of this revolutionary policy of liberalization is now clear for all to see: nothing less than an unmitigated disaster. We have been converted into a net food importing country. Employment in agriculture has dropped precipitously. Whole sectors of our agriculture, such as corn, are in the throes of crisis owing to imports being dumped on us. As one of our trade negotiators told his counterparts in Geneva before the Cancun ministerial of the WTO in 2003, “Our agricultural sectors that are strategic to food and livelihood security and rural employment have already been destabilized as our small producers are being slaughtered by the gross unfairness of the international trading environment. Even as I speak, our small producers are being slaughtered in our own markets, and even the more resilient and efficient are in distress.”

The results have been equally stark in industry. Doctrinaire liberalization resulted in multiple bankruptcies and job losses. The list of industrial casualties is awesome. It includes paper products, textiles, ceramics, rubber products, furnitures and fixtures, petrochemicals, beverage, wood, shoes, petroleum oils, clothing accessories, and leather goods. Our textile industry, for instance, has shrank from 200 firms in the 1970′s to fewer than 10 today.

The undermining of our industry and agriculture, however, has not been the only negative effect of doctrinaire liberalization. By reducing our tariffs so radically, we also drastically reduced government revenues, thus contributing to the fiscal crisis. Probably, the best estimates of foregone revenue are provided by economist Clarence Pascual of LEARN, who finds that total foregone revenue rises from P58 billion in 1998 to P108 billion in 2003, averaging 2.4% of GDP for the period. These are magnitudes that are, he notes, simply “mind-boggling.” These are the magnitudes that led former Finance secretary Jose Isidro Camacho to admit the obvious: “The severe deterioration of fiscal performance from the mid-1990′s could be attributed to aggressive tariff reduction.”

The Philippine crisis is not unique

Let me now put our travails in a global context. The crisis of the Philippines brought about by the combination of failed democratic politics and neoliberal economic policies is not exceptional. It simply replicates the experience of so many developing countries over the last two decades under the hegemony of corporate-driven globalization. The successes are few and far between, and if some countries succeeded in growing in the last 25 years, as was the case with our neighbors in East and Southeast Asia, this was because they adopted anti-neoliberal policies that protected and subsidized their industries instead of throwing them open to the massively subsidized commodities produced by transnational corporations like we did. In this regard, let me share with you an insight of one Chinese economist on the difference between technocrats in the Philippines and those in Malaysia and Thailand and China . He said the Filipinos preach the free market and practice what they preach while the others preach the free market but proceed to adopt exactly the opposite policies.

So let me recapitulate my main points so far.

- Our national failure is largely a failure at the elite level.

- Corruption is certainly a factor, but far more important in accounting for our stagnation is a failed democratic state and a disastrous policy of market fundamentalism.

- The crisis of the Philippines is not unique. It is the typical crisis of a developing country in the period of corporate-driven globalization, which has been marked by the rise in the absolute numbers of the poor globally, more inequality both between and within countries, and economic stagnation.

- The countries that escaped stagnation did so because, on almost every point, they followed policies that were protectionist, restricted the market, and put development ahead of the free market.

If this analysis is correct, then the way to climb out of the whole we’re in is to adopt an approach with three key prongs: making the political system more democratic, adopting radical social reform measures aimed at making income and asset distribution more egalitarian, and making a 360-degree turn in economic policy to counter the negative thrusts of corporate-driven globalization.

Other awardees will speak about the first and second dimensions of this comprehensive program. Let me limit myself to addressing the third, that is proposing an alternative set of economic policies that could create the basis for the resurgence of our country.

Elements of a program of economic resurgence

High up on the list is adopting the dictum that what we need for development is not less state but more. The Philippine state must be given a greater relative autonomy vis-a-vis the elite. It must be able to discipline the private interests that have constantly hijacked it for particularistic ends. In this regard, the problem with protectionism as it has been practiced in the Philippines is not protectionism per se but that it has been opportunistic – one simply oriented to promoting narrow vested interests and without reference to a strategic plan to deepen the economy.

Yet this prescription must be taken in the light of the experience of the newly industrializing countries with a strong state. In Korea and Taiwan, development was accompanied by authoritarianism, by regimes whose lack of democratic accountability resulted not only in human rights abuses but in the adoption of strategies that resulted in the degradation of the environment and the sacrifice of agriculture. In any future arrangement, both the private sector and the state must be checked by the participation of civil society in both political and economic decision making. Owing to its recent history, in particular, the struggle against dictatorship, a not insignificant organized civil society has developed in the Philippines. It is now time to institutionalize its participation in any future political arrangement. Democracy does not contradict the development of an effective state. Indeed, democracy promotes an effective state by endowing it with legitimacy.

A second element of a post-EDSA development strategy is focusing on the internal market as the driver of development. Export-oriented growth of the kind that was pursued by NICs is no longer possible in an era of tremendous manufacturing overcapacity and the resulting protectionism in developed country markets that this has spawned. And even if developed country protectionism were not a problem, export-oriented manufacturing would not be an advantageous strategy today, given the tremendous advantage that China has in labor costs. Given the renewed centrality of the internal market, the imperative for massive income distribution to create consumers with purchasing power becomes very critical. Concretely, this means renewing the drive for effective land reform. It would also mean effective programs of taxation of the richer parts of the population, in order both to increase mass purchasing capacity through transfer payments, as well as to accumulate the capital necessary for strategic investments.

Creating a viable internal market is one priority. Protecting it from artificially cheap imports that stem from subsidization or overexploitation is another. However, protectionism can longer remain opportunistic, an incoherent policy that is simply dictated by vested interests. Protectionism must be strategic, one that is linked to deepening the country’s industrial and manufacturing structure through selective tariffication or selective liberalization. Building up capital intensive industries such as steel, transportation equipment, and computers will necessitate a flexible tariff policy, coupled, of course, with investment incentives and state-sponsored technological development.

A fourth important dimension of a post-EDSA economic strategy is sustainable development. The pillage of our natural resources has proceeded to the point where the economic future of future generations of Filipinos has been severely threatened. The high 6%-8% growth of the NIC model simply is not possible to replicate without inviting more environmental dislocations. The key lies in opting for a strategy of lower, sustainable growth rates, which is only possible if there is much more equitable sharing of the fruits of a sustainable economy (meaning, you can’t have sustainable development without radical social reform), a reinvigoration of agriculture along the lines of smallholder systems producing mainly for local and national markets with environmentally friendly agro-technology, and the greening of manufacturing technology. It will also mean reinvigorating local manufacturing and agricultural industries through flexible application of the principle of subsidiarity, meaning whatever can be produced at least cost at the local level should be undertaken at that level. Strong central leadership of the strategic planning process must be coupled to decentralized, sustainable production in key areas like agriculture. This is the challenge of development in a Philippine context in the 21st century.

A fifth critical element is coordinating our national development strategy with those of our neighbors. The reality of international economics in the 21st century is the existence of large economic blocs, the most important of which are the European Union, the United States, and China . It is difficult to see small and medium nation states being able to effectively develop or participate in the international economy without becoming part of a larger formation, whether this is based on common interests as developing countries – for instance, the Group of 20 – or being part of a regional bloc such as a reformed ASEAN that is marked by comprehensive economic cooperation.

Let me explain briefly. The problem with ASEAN, however, is that its most important economic project, the ASEAN Free Trade Area, or AFTA, is one that is strategically directionless. The aim of AFTA is to reduce and eliminate tariff barriers among participating economies, but whether this is for the purpose of serving as a step towards global free trade or as one towards a regional market protected by tariffs and quotas to serve as base for regionally coordinated import substitution has not been decided. This indeterminacy has left the regional formation unable to effectively undertake planning, technology sharing, and institutionalizing a division of labor at a regional level. Without such a program, the different national economic actors will see tariff reductions as leading to a zero-sum game in which the more advanced industrial elites will end up dominating the regional market.

An even greater concern is the democratic deficit in ASEAN. This regional formation was a creation of government elites that was done with no consultation of peoples in the region. Not surprisingly, being part of an entity called ASEAN is not in the consciousness of the peoples of ASEAN. This means that projects that technocrats agree to in the name of ASEAN unity such as AFTA enjoy little legitimacy and binding power. Democratizing ASEAN is essential if it is to become an effective participant in a world marked by the dynamics of big economic blocks.

Participating in a reformed ASEAN regional bloc should just be one of several cooperative initiatives the Philippines must engage in. The Philippines is already part of the Group of 20, a larger formation that also includes India, China, Brazil, and South Africa. The potential of this group in terms of coordinating the policies of its members beyond the immediate issue that brought them together in Cancun – opposition to agricultural subsidies maintained by the developed economies – is great and can extend to technology sharing, transborder industrial policy, shared investment policies, and common environmental strategies. The organizational framework for what has been called, in the language of development economics, “South-South development cooperation,” is present in the G20. A forward-looking Philippine government can make an invaluable contribution in translating this potential into reality.

Finally, national, regional, and South-South initiatives must be coupled with Philippine leadership in restructuring the system of global economic governance, which is today dominated by the powerful developed economies. The key institutions that have institutionalized the hegemony of the North are the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. Reform of these institutions has proven to be extremely difficult, while dismantling them seems to be a political impossibility. A coalition of developing countries can, however, aim at reducing the power of these institutions and work to gradually supplant the current system of global governance with a more pluralistic system of institutions and organizations interacting with one another, guided by broad and flexible agreements and understandings. In other words, this strategy would aim at turning the current multilateral giants into just another set of actors coexisting with and being checked by other international organizations, agreements, and regional groupings. It would include strengthening diverse actors and institutions as UNCTAD, multilateral environmental agreements, the International Labor Organization, and regional economic blocs.

The aim of such a strategy is to create space in the global economy for developing countries like the Philippines to put together unique strategies for development that respond to their values and rhythms as societies, something that is not now possible owing to the one-size-fits-all neoliberal model promoted by the IMF-World Bank-WTO complex.

There is an alternative

In sum, there is an alternative to the political economy of anti-development that currently reigns in the Philippines. A hard, unromantic analysis is the key to a viable program for change. We will not get anywhere unless we accept the fact that the interests of our elite and the Filipino people diverge, and it is time we put the interests of the people ahead of that of our elite, which is distinguished by the fact that it is one of the most unenlightened in Asia. We will not get anywhere unless we accept the fact that corporate-driven globalization is part of the problem, indeed a major part of the problem, not the solution. We will not get anywhere unless we adopt a policy framework that consistently puts national development in command instead of free trade and the free flow of corporate capital. We will not get anywhere if we continue to be seduced by false doctrines such as that of market fundamentalism peddled by such institutions as the UP School of Economics . (Incidentally, contrary to popular perception, I come not from the UP School of Economics but from the UP College of Social Sciences and Philosophy. The difference, friends, is night and day.)

Let me end by telling those who call us the sick man of Asia , those who talk about our “damaged culture,” those who say that our best chance is by adjusting ourselves to the demands of corporate-driven globalization: the best years of this country are still ahead of us.

The project called the Philippines is not over. It’s barely begun.