This week’s EDSA euphoria has given me a lot of room for contemplation, not only because I’m currently in the process of finishing my Master’s thesis about People Power 3 and the EDSA narrative in general, but also in light of what’s happening right now in certain parts of the world where people are beginning to stand communaly against unjust socio-political structures.

Ever since the African-Arab revolts have erupted, I constantly hear smug remarks from some fellow Filipinos that “we did it better in ‘86” because the almost-miraculous rate by which people flooded the lanes of EDSA happened before the age of the internet and social networking sites. The EDSA People Power Revolution is indeed a source of pride for my people, but I would like to think that what Tunisia and Egypt have accomplished should remind us as well of the still-monumental task of deepening democracy and equality in our very own land. With what is transpiring now in another part of the world, I am humbled as a student of politics, a Filipino, and more so as a human being.

To our brothers and sisters in Tunisia and Egypt: the road to democracy and freedom is long and hard, and toppling a dictator is only the beginning. The real work starts the morning after the revolution, when the energies and hopes of a people must be channeled into the creation of new platforms for institutional change. Celebration can be a dangerous thing if left to stagnation and complacency once the demands of “daily life” sets in. It has been 25 years since our very own revolution and we have yet to return political power to the hands of ordinary people.

To the people of Libya: keep the faith—in your power to turn the tide of history, in the power of the truth, and in the inevitability of justice. The use of force is alien to and in direct opposition with a true democratic society. Gaddafi’s reign must come to an end, and when that day comes, do not harden your hearts. A meaningful future can only unfold if one comes into terms with the past. This means forgiveness for those who were caught unwillingly in the vicious trappings of power, and swift justice for those who obstructed genuine aspirations for freedom. After the First EDSA Revolution, we had our share of mistakes—in fact, we elected two of them; one was a selfish plunderer and the other a power-hungry, oppressive liar. At this point in our history, we are still healing from very deep wounds and divisions, but we have not given up and once again made a choice to wager on the side of hope and change.

Tomorrow will be any other day once more. The bus lanes from Ortigas to Santolan will again be open, the evening news will go back to regular programming, while the ordinary citizen struggles to make ends meet. People Power is not a cure-all for all the ills of a fractured nation and its compromised political institutions; rather, it is a revolutionary memory and force of hope that should constantly remind of aspirations that must be fought for extraordinarily in the geographies of ordinary life.

“…We have yet to achieve the cultural integration of the meaning of the Holocaust, which is essential if the slogan “Never Again!” is to become a living reality. We must ask ourselves why we have failed. Is it because we are unwilling to face the meaning of the event? Are we so repelled by its sheer horror that we are unintentionally repressing the investigation of what it means in terms of the future of our civilization? Is it because we start with the a priori assumption that events of this sort are unintelligible? Have we so “mystified” the event itself that it seems somehow disconnected from our own age, something that happened on another planet entirely? It seems clear to me that the crisis we face with regard to knowing and understanding the Holocaust is partly, if not largely, one of our own making.”

- Alan Rosenberg, “The Crisis in Knowing and Understanding the Holocaust,” mula sa ECHOES FROM THE HOLOCAUST

Nobyembre 23, 2010. Mag-iisang taon na mula nang naganap ang isa sa mga pinakanakakarimarim na krimen sa ating kontemporanyong kasaysayan. Sa bayan ng Ampatuan, Maguindanao ay pinaslang nang walang-awa ang 57 katao ng mga elementong kakabit ng nanunugkulang angkan ng mga Ampatuan sa probinsyang ito. Pangunahin sa mga pinaslang, katulad ng nasabi na sa lahat ng pag-alala, ang maybahay ng pinuno ng kaalit nilang angkan ng  mga Mangudadatu, mga kapatid niya, mga mamamahayag, mannanggol, kasambahay at mga inosenteng motorista. Nagimbal ang buong sambayanan, lumuha, nagngalit atlalong nawalan ng tiwala sa mga sistemang pampamahalaang pinangunguluhan ng teknokratiko-awtoritaryang pangulong Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (na sa kasalukuya’yhindi pa rin napapanagot sa kanyang mga kasalanan sa bayan). Magpasahanggang ngayon, nakabinbin pa rin ang kaso ng paglilitis sa mga pangunahing pinaghihinalaang maysala sa karumal-dumal na krimen na si Andal Ampatuan Jr., dating punongbayan ng Datu Unsay (na nakapiit pa rin at nakatatanggap ng di-kawasang mabuting pagtrato kung ihahambing sa karaniwang preso).

Sa paglipas ng isang taon, tila baga muli na naman tayong nawawalan ng gana umalala dala ng ating pagnanasa ng bagong buhay. Sa pangako ng pagsunod sa tuwid na landas mula sa bagong administrasyon ng Pangulong Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, naritong muli ang ating tendensiyang limutin na lamang ang mga nangyari nang masama nitong nakaraan, lalo’t hindi naman tayo tila kasangkot dito (lalo sa ating mga lumaki na sa kalunsuran). At bakit nga ba naman hindi? Nakakapagod umalala. Masakit makaalala. Mahirap ang matandaan ang lahat ng bagay na kasingsama nito, na kasing-nakakabagabag ng katotohanang ang karaniwang mamamayan ay pwedeng-pwedeng lipulin na lamang nang basta-basta kung nanaisin ng isang nakatataas sa lipunan. At siyempre, hindi nawawala yung ating karaniwang pagnanasa sa mga bagay na madali. Yaong bagang pagnanasa sa isang takbo ng buhay na hindi na natin pinag-iisipan dahil ang tunay na iniisip lamang natin ay gusto nating maging masaya sa ating mga sarili. Na nais nating sundan ang ating mga pagnanasa’t gawing hinahanap sa kabila ng mga posibleng maibubunga nito sa ating kapwa.

Maipapalagay na nagkukulang pa ang pamahalaang Aquino sa pagpapabiis ng pag-usad sa kasong ito dala ng kanyang pagpupumilit na isalba ang katatagan ng mga aparato ng estado upang matiyak ang ikabubuti ng sambayanan. Bagaman ang layunin at kilos na ito ay masasabing marangal at karapt-dapat sa isang responsableng pamahalaan, hindi nawawala ang katotohanan at kabigatan ng kanyang tungkuling dalhin ang mga nagkasala sa taumbayan at sa mga naging biktima ng pamamaslang sa dambana ng katarungan. Ipinangako ng pamahalaan na ipanunumbalik ang demokrasya, kalayaang sibil at karapatan ng mamamayan; hinihingi ngayon ng pagkakataon na maging matatag, malinaw at matibay ang pagsukol ng sistema ng hudikatura sa mga maysala upang muling manauli ang pagtitiwala ng taumbayan sa kanyang pamahalaan. Naganap ang pamamaslang na ito dala na rin ng pagpupumilit ng nakaraang rehimeng Arroyo na panatilihin ang kultura ng kawalan ng politika, diskurso at pagbubuo ng opinyon sa ngalan ng pagsusulong ng mga programang panlipunang hindi makakabuti (lalo’t hindi sinangguni) sa taumbayan. Sa pagpapanatili ng mga sistemang patron at kultura ng kamangmangan sa taumbayan para na rin sa ikabubuti ng mga naghaharing-uri, mahihirapan ang anumang kilos sa reporma at pagbabanyuhay ng lipunan.

Kaakibat din naman nito, hinihingi sa taumbayan ang pagbabalikwas at muling pagpapanauli sa mga ugnayang panlipunan. Kailangang kalasan ang pagnanasang lumayo mula sa pampubliko’t sibikong tungkulin upang pagtuunan ang pansariling pagpapabuti lamang. Bagaman totoong kinakailangan ang isang mabuti’t malusog na indibidwal upang mabuo ang isang mahusay na lipunan, ang pagtutok lamang sa sarili, sa lahat ng panahon, ay nagdulot ng pagsusulong ng mga anti-demokratikong elemento sa paaralan, pamayanan at bansa. Kinakailangang kilalaning sa pagsusulong ng isang matibay at nagkakaisang bansa, hindi maaaring isawalang-bahala ang interes ng kaliit-liitang mamamayan. Ang mamamayang marhinalisado, dukha at kumapit na sa patalim, kung hindi man kabilang na sa angaw-angaw na lumipad sa ibang bansa, ang laging nabibiktima ng mga mapanlinlang na sistemang panlipunan. Napanatili ang mga sistemang awtoritaryan sa Maguindanao dala na rin ng pag-alipin sa ating mga kababayan sa kahirapan at takot; mababago ito kung maisasabuhay at mabibigyang-lakas ang mamamayan magsalita’t mangatwiran.

Marapat tayong maniwalang malaki ang magagawa ng masikhay, mulat at malay na Atenista kung siya’y magpapatuloy sa kanyang pag-aaral at pagsasalita tungkol sa kanyang lipunang ginagalawan. Kinakailangang tapusin na ang panahon ng Atenistang nagsusulong lamang ng mga kilusan sa pagsasama-sama upang magkasiyahan at mamigay ng limos upang pagtakpan ang kanyang papel sa pagpapalaganap ng kultura ng kawalang-pakialam. Hindi maaaring maging “Tanglaw ng Diyos” ang isang Atenistang nasa dilim tungkol sa pinakamahalagang ugnayan ng mga tao: ang politika at pamayanan. Sa pamamagitan ng pagiging mulat, pagiging malay sa interes ng marhinalisado, at pamumuhay nang makatuwiran, magagawa ng isang Atenista na bumahagi sa kilusan tungo sa demokratisasyon at mapigilan ang muling pagputok ng ganitong dahas sa ating mamayan.

HINDI KAMI LILIMOT! KASALANAN ANG LUMIMOT! KATARUNGAN, NGAYON NA!

Hansley A. Juliano

(Note: Originally a final requirement for the course “PoS 160: Current Issues and Problems in Philippine Government and Politics” under Ms. Joy G. Aceron, this is an expanded form of the writeup with initial ideas for tactics on mobilization and the social considerations attached therein. The themes will be revisited once further research has been conducted.)

Among the literature that has attempted to analyze and understand the development of the Philippine nation, its society and its component people, it is supposedly only Jose Maria Sison who was able to present a comprehensive framework for political change in the country via his seminal Philippine Society and Revolution (published under the pseudonym of” Amado Guerrero” in 1970). Characterizing the Philippine socio-political landscape as “a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society” via its collective colonial heritage of Spanish frontier-building among the vast East Indies and the United States’ avowed deceptive program of “Benevolent Assimilation,” the publication therefore pronounces that political change can only come through a “a national-democratic revolution, a revolution seeking the liberation of the Filipino people from foreign and feudal oppression and exploitation.” (Guerrero 1970, 77).

While the aforementioned tactics for revolution have been espoused for the past forty years by the Communist Party of the Philippines in its employment of “protracted people’s war,” we must also note that this line of thinking has brought the struggle nowhere near its objectives of capturing state mechanisms and instilling a new socio-political culture amongst the Filipino populace. Opting instead to cultivate pocket areas of resistance that only serve to isolate these areas from the national government and political life, this mode of proceeding has only accomplished in branding them to be terrorists and incapable of participating in the liberal-democratic space of the Philippines. The National Democratic Front has seemingly recognized this and has already been placing higher priority on “political struggle and the urban arena” in their efforts to mobilization, despite avowing the primacy of armed struggle and the rural pockets (Quimpo 2008, 71). Nonetheless, the undemocratic nature of their struggle and rhetoric remains: a “totalizing” one which “viewed all other significant struggles, such as those for women’s rights, minority rights, and environmental well-being, as aspects of the broader struggle against fascism and imperialism, which was ‘central’ and thus claimed strategic priority” (Bello 1993, 13). If any, such a mentality has been deemed counterproductive by Chantal Mouffe in expressing that “we need to establish different forms of articulation among democratic struggles and no one element of struggle should have a privileged position.” (Mouffe 1993, 113).

Philippine politics has been derided to have always been a personality- and patronage-based ball game where it is only the elites who are benefitting from the “spoils of contestation” through rampant use of state mechanisms to appropriate public funds for themselves. That local and national politics has been inextricably tied to the caprice of elites who do not seem to truly use their hegemonic positionality towards the reconfiguration of the socio-political setup has undermined the value of parliamentary struggle. The necessity of a highly-inclusive yet highly-polarized struggle for democratization that will allow articulation of people’s interests have been increasingly problematic that the common Filipino citizen no longer has any idea of how to actually participate in a genuine politics of change.

This review, therefore, seeks to reframe the current conflict of ideas and perspectives regarding how socio-political change could truly be achieved in the primacy of the liberal-democratic elite within the Philippines through the employment of radical democratic, socialist and even anarchistic tactics. In acknowledging the necessity of operating between institutionalized and formal politics as well as revolutionizing public participation using unorthodox means, I argue that political participation be centered around active contestation of systems that curtail social justice and the re-institution of a counter-culture of “communal determinism.” This mode of social organization, rooting from the tradition of Jose Rizal’s La Liga Filipina, is intended to create citizens who are capable of living and rationalizing for themselves yet are willing to participate in massive and well-planned collective struggles that will be able to integrate all concerns of human life and development, without the horrible and anti-democratic underpinnings of “tolerance” that inevitably makes people’s interest clash. This mode of participation shall be understood via the following discussions. We first employ an analysis of the Philippine political sphere as a colonial and middle-class project which explains the tendency to reaction of local sectors employing increasing isolationism in the name of “cultural preservation” that endangers democratic consolidation. From this, I highlight the problematic nature of a flawed uncompromisingly-nationalist and reason-based rhetoric employed in democratic state consolidation, governing the action of social movements and civil society who in turn contribute to the increasing privatization of political participation. With such threats to the development of an active citizenry, I finally argue for the development of parallel modes of struggle criss-crossing within and without social movements and state apparatuses, in order to advance a thorough contestation of the dominant liberal-democratic state towards a social democratic setup.

Violent Intrusion

The varying cultures and social groupings that existed within the Philippine islands (particularly the barangay) in pre-colonial times have been operating under modes of production that are operating within hermeneutics of production and exchange. Thriving industries of agriculture, public and private landholding, animal husbandry, mining and weaving supported local development. Domestic and foreign trade was flourishing as well, with the barter system allowing for equitable exchange of consumables and valuables (Agoncillo 1990, 52). This socio-economic setup is visibly oriented towards the maintenance of a seasonal and stable means of livelihood and resource protection. Obviously, there is no concept of production centred towards accumulation as the varying systems of capitalism have outlined. The federal nature of pre-colonial Philippine politics (a label that, while contestable, I will use for purposes of this argument to refer to the fact that the barangays co-exist peacefully with treaties and are open to cooperation with each other in particular undertakings) allowed for checks and balances between localities’ interests, assuring that no particular barangay will seek to extend boundaries at the prejudice of others.

This backfired during the advent of Spanish colonization, where the divide et impera strategy of the conquistadores deprived the barangays of a consolidated stand against maintaining their independence (entering into alliances with the foreign settlers [such as Sikatuna] for purposes of protection and support). With the inclusion of the noble clans into the colonial state apparatus as cabezas de barangay, the colonization effort was given further legitimacy amongst the populace. The intrusion of feudal and capitalist production within the territories of the Philippine islands upset the natural and communal balance that our ancestors have sought to protect. The reconfiguration of the local economic setup, while it was able to develop agriculture production more efficiently, it was inevitably instrumental in widening the gap between social classes. Rapid economic development and Philippine participation in global free trade was only actualized in the late 19th century (the Manila-Acapulco Galleon Trade notwithstanding). The emergence of a mestizo and indio middle class (led in the national mythology by the so-called ilustrados like Rizal, Del Pilar and Ponce) allowed for the advancement of a nationalist project that gave birth to the 1896 Philippine Revolution. The key involvement of the United States of America in the struggle (influenced by the outbreak of the Spanish-American War), while tactically vital in assuring Spanish surrender to the forces of General Emilio Aguinaldo, ultimately paved the way for the institutionalization of American presence culminating in the Filipino-American War and US colonization of the Islands.

Reformation of the system towards consolidating American hegemony was enforced by the creative blending of disciplinary mechanisms of colonial state apparatuses, as McCoy, Scarano and Johnson (2009, 15) outlined:

Within the vast array of U.S. colonial programs, policing was arguably the most successful in situ and the most significant in its metropolitan resonance. Confronted with intractable Philippine resistance, which persisted for over a decade, the U.S. colonial regime fused the centralized Spanish imperial police with America’s advanced information systems to create an Argus-eyed colonial force, the Philippines Constabulary. Its unprecedented capacity for mass surveillance proved a bellwether for parallel domestic developments.

The thorough implementation of governmentality (1) in colonial policy instituted path dependency and the primacy of private-controlled capital in developing the fledgling Philippine economy primed to compete in the global market (as mandated by the Tydings-McDuffee Act). Its articulation in the creation of the Philippine Commonwealth under the presidency of Manuel Luis Quezon prefigured the current neo-liberal democratic Philippine state, which is arguably a middle- and upper-class project that simply co-opted colonial apparatuses. The same logic, in a sense, also characterized the First Republic of Aguinaldo, which was forced to maintain colonial bureaucratic offices in order to maintain consolidated service delivery towards sectors of Philippine society they can reach, but nonetheless reinforced social strata between the ilustrados and the common indio folk.

Moreover, while the 1896 Revolution did articulate and advance a national community, it is inevitable Tagalog-centric and as such has a tendency to alienate other local cultures, specifically the hegemonic Cebuano majority in the Visayas and the dominant Moro denomination in Mindanao. (2) The maintenance of such setups (despite efforts to decentralize issue articulation beyond locality affiliations) allowed for the entrenchment of local elites using Rousseauvian “state of nature” rhetoric in order to maintain their localities’ isolation from the Philippine democratic state, which their constituencies do not approve of yet are powerless to do anything about. The case of Ali Dimaporo’s presentation of himself as a Maranao datu in promoting authoritarian terror through his private army Barracuda calls this to mind, with the most notorious case being the Ampatuans in Maguindanao whose name now goes down in infamy for perpetuating the Maguindanao Massacre of November 23, 2009. (3) Nevertheless, to consider this phenomenon as solely Moro-based would be unfounded, as patronage politics of authoritarian terror has been part of life in Caloocan City under the Asistios.

“Beyond Fiction”

A majority of Philippine nationalist literature which has entered popular consciousness has been prone to presenting the struggles as a uniform, consolidated and united effort of people from all walks of life to build a nation out of abstract motivations. (4) While these perspectives are definitely commendable for a mythic presentation of communal affiliation, it is precisely this fictiveness that asks us to question it and go beyond its dictates as to how we should engage in work for socio-political change. There is a need to depart from the standard nationalist rhetoric which usually blames “weak national integration” as the key problem which allows local elites to perpetuate unjust social structures that the sovereign national government is incapable of contesting. The existing state apparatus maintains the fictive operation of creating the uniformity of the race, a project which Hardt and Negri detailed succinctly (2000, 103-4):

The identity of the people was constructed on an imaginary plane that hid and/or eliminated differences, and this corresponded on the practical plane to racial subordination and social purification. The second fundamental operation in the construction of the people, which is facilitated by the first, is the eclipse of internal differences through the representation of the whole population by a hegemonic group, race, or class. The representative group is the active agent that stands behind the effectiveness of the concept of nation.

This imposition to subscribe to a fictional image of the citizen serving the nation, instead of truly shaping the citizen to be an active participant in the creation of spaces for participation in the public space, has actually created them to be “docile bodies” who “become elements that may be placed, moved articulated on others.” (Foucault 1995, 164). The dictates of nationalism can be so overwhelming that they can and will centralize the image of the nation as vital at the risk of alienating other equally-important social concerns, as well as endanger the very conception of civil liberties. (5) Of similar importance, as well, is the need to abandon the long-standing antagonism of political actors to religious participation by the ruling middle- and upper-class. Rooting from the anti-clerical and free-thinking tradition of the Propaganda Movement, the Masonic roots of the Philippine Revolution, as well as the continuous implication of various religious actors in social injustice, the tendency to insist separation of Church and State is a favourite ad hominem tactic of secular and partisan groups whenever religious actors (specifically the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church) would dare venture their opinions. This persistence on wholesale secularism and glorification of the nation, as could be seen, did not spell well for the maintenance of a supposedly pluralistic democratic space, and has initiated a spreading mode of thinking amongst the upper- and middle-class members of the electronic herd (6) to discredit democratic practice in itself, promoting cosmopolitanism.

These realities asks us to see how the mutual inability of social movements in the local level to penetrate the conflicting space of national interest consolidation, as well as nationalist, “good governance” politics’ incapability to present its agenda to a captive electorate driven by patronage and rent-seeking, is keeping people from participating in a widespread movement for structural change. As Patricio Abinales noted in light of the failure of most social movements and civil society efforts (particularly Leftist actors such as Akbayan and the Communist Party of the Philippines) to advance advocacies in the local level (2008, 91):

… [P]rogressive forces can only remain relevant nationally if they rebuild locally. This means shifting their resources and personnel to the painstaking process of building chapters and organizations at the barangay, town, city and provincial levels, focusing their investigative and analytical skills to understand the political economy of these areas (instead of wasting time and paper on national evaluations), all towards determining the proper long-term strategy to win (seize?) power in these battlegrounds.

Moreover, a campaign for “clean politics” (especially manifested in the highly-electoralist [and therefore prone to inefficiency] campaigns for electoral reform) inevitably polarizes social classes, wherein the “burgis portrayal of the poor as people driven only by material need, as people without principles… provided the basis for voter education in 2001 and that seemed to pique so many of the respondents” (Schaffer 2009, 141). Class sensibility remains a highly-palatable framework of analysis in analyzing Philippine politics due to the political environment’s compatibility to coercion theory (7), and this peculiar obsession with it somewhat hampers inter-class and inter-advocacy dialogue for interest consolidation (as is the case in the 2010 presidential polls when supposed “populist” candidate Manuel Villar clashed with reformist candidate Benigno Aquino III, a member of the Philippine elite).

The More, The Merrier

Strategies for social change, according to literature and experience, have been concentrated towards social movements and civil society that have succeeded in marketing political participation as a decidedly individually-determined participation which should serve the “pursuit of private happiness” by citizens. In fact, one can see the development of the Philippine Bishops-Businessmen’s Conference (PBBC) as the emergence of “a countermeasure against, rather than an extension of, [radical] pressures from below [the social hierarchy]” (Hedman 2006, 106). That interest articulations (as shown by the dynamics of the party-list system) are somewhat concentrated on advancing gain for socio-economic enterprises and not radical change of political institutions towards a more equitable social arrangement raises questions on the capability to advance more responsive politics. We can subvert this trend by precisely entering these structures of private mobilization and yet maintain parallel linkages of advancing interests and ideologies beyond co-opted spaces. Civil society’s avowed non-partisanship (something it arguably “obsessively” clings on to) might therefore be counterproductive in the long run, as the maintenance of a politics based on conviction of non-affiliation is “inevitably totalitarian”, since it “sits uneasily in a realm whose medium is action and whose constitutive elements are therefore those of contingency, opportunity, invention and compromise” (Brown 2001, 94).

It would be definitely important to harness the energies of perceived “idle sectors” (loosely defined in this paper as “sectors who are not directly involved in political participation and are prone to not having any political stance”) which are more vulnerable to being co-opted in the production of the neo-liberal social setup in order to promote this long-awaited counterculture. While not an exhaustive list, these proposals for dealing with sectors might allow us to rethink tactics that could be employed:

• Pre-University/Out-of-School Youth: Arguably comprised of students in the intermediate and high school level, they are perceived as the most vulnerable sector due to their inexperience regarding communal participation. Most students are brought up in a sanitized environment via an educational system which forms them to prioritize the pursuit of individual happiness over communal participation. There is a tendency within educational curricula to deride review and analysis of political issues with lens partial to critical analysis or advocating social justice, viewing them as “dangerous” and “partial to disturb the peace.” Forms of communal participation and development taught to them center on liberalist values of charity, bourgeois values of conformity and maintenance of state-defined peace and order, which tend to demonize social movements as “de-stabilizers” and organized labour as “bad for business and economic sustainability.” In convincing students from this sector to take a stand on political issues, it might be important to frame it by appealing to perspectives on communality, altruism, sustainability, national pride and commitment to others’ welfare as a universally-acceptable tenet. Political participation, as well as the justification of social movements via these perspectives, might convince them to contribute in their own little way regarding these advocacies. Contributions could be related to framing their interests towards fun activities that benefit particular sectors (such as reach-out activities and educational programs for the empowerment of vulnerable sectors), while capable of consolidating popular culture in order to make it more attractive. Consolidation of cosmopolitan tastes and lower-rung pop culture (contemporarily labelled jejemon) would be very helpful. Convincing must be conducted in relation to their parents and household in order to promote civil dialogue (see Domestic Managers below).
• University Youth: Being more often than not recently exposed to critical analysis of societal arrangements, they are usually more receptive of analyzing social issues, participate in mobilizations and articulate particular advocacies; this might only hold true, however, for universities that employ the study of liberal arts. Students of science and business, by comparison, are not that receptive (if not even antagonistic) to dealing with political issues due to their corporatist mindset of the necessity of elite knowledge to conduct reforms and revolutionizing the fields of engagement as well. The perceived slant of the social sciences and humanities to critique them do not help matters, in a sense. It would be therefore important to frame issues that involve, even at a marginal or superficial level, considerations of technological capability as a means to convince them that their field of study/interest affects social setups greatly and, therefore, should convince them to stake a stand for sustainability and justice as well. Aforementioned tactics for attracting their youthful sensibilities in the Pre-University Youth section similarly apply.
• Informal Settlers: Formerly known as “squatters” and the stereotypical image of the masa, informal settlers are time and again accused of being prone to patronage politics as well as criminal activities. While formerly a grave problem exclusive to the Greater Manila Area, the advent of urbanization in many commercial hubs in the country also contributed to their rise. Due to unsustainable living conditions and the propensity to licentiousness encouraged by these, people who are satisfied in their area are very much apathetic while those who desire social mobility are too focused on sustaining their day-to-day lives that they think participating in public issues is a burden. It would be important to frame issues as to how their very position of poverty is a product of unjust social structures, while simultaneously empowering them to participate in activities that allow them to earn a decent living. Cooperative business can be conducive in allowing them economic sustainability while making them more participative in social analysis.
• White-collar/Contractual Labour: Driven by similar desires for social mobility, white-collared labour is less conducive to union organization due to their desire to maintain tenure and support their social obligations (to their families for example). Contractual labour, precisely due to their transient nature, does not allow them to even entrench themselves in the production sector they participate in. The seeming antagonism of organized blue-collar labour to their plight does little to change their perception of political participation as ultimately vain. It would be therefore important to frame political analysis with regards to their sectors’ part in promoting (or indeed, hindering) sustainability for national growth. Advocating regularization of contractual workers and popularizing other modes of income-generation would be helpful as well.
• Domestic Managers: Particularly comprised of home-based parents and housekeepers, their entrenchment in the domestic setting makes them vulnerable to dismissing political savvy as important to their lives. It would be important, therefore, to frame domestic necessities (like the price of common goods) as also affected by socio-political realities and therefore should make them more conscious and appreciative of economic policies as mandated by political frameworks. They are especially important to be formed to critical thinking as they bring up their children into becoming socially-conscious and participative citizens, more so in their developing years (see Pre-University Youth and University Youth above).

“Si est tutus, est non iustus”

In this light, therefore, it would be similarly necessary to disengage ourselves from middle-class liberal democracy that serves bare life and begin participating in a politics that is open to contingencies and alliances which are not solely based on personal expediency but a holistic ideological formation of citizenship. It would be important, in a sense, to acknowledge that “identity is rediscovered in a diachronic totality: an inexorable succession of stages allows existing social reality to be divided into phenomena that are necessary or contingent, according to the stage of that society ‘s approaching maturity.” (Laclau and Mouffe 2001, 21). In the articulation of sides and interests which will be upheld by a truly democratic movement, one must acknowledge that political realities are not as static as what occurs in the natural sciences, and therefore one’s ideas of participation should as well never be static.

Coming from these discussions, therefore, it would be necessary to conduct an intensive campaign for political change that is expansive yet micro-based in its approaches to dealing with incumbent and ambient socio-political crises. Social movements and civil society’s capabilities and technologies towards mobilization should be democratized and be made accessible to all regardless of positioning and clashing perspectives. As Laclau and Mouffe would once again reiterate (2001, 54):

The unfulfilled democratic tasks are simply a stepping-stone for the working class to advance towards its strictly class objectives. In this way , the conditions are created not only for the specificity of the hegemonic link to be systematically conjured away (given that its factual or circumstantial character eschews any conceptual construction), but also for its disappearance to be made invisible. Indeed, the insertion o f the hegemonic relation into a narrative of adjustments and recompositions , into a succession which cannot be subsumed under the principle of repetition , seems to give a meaning to that conceptually evanescent presence.

There must be an acknowledgment that, despite the roots of class struggle mobilization coming from an economistic view of human relations, struggles via which class interests would be marketed in order to mobilize as much forces as possible would be rooted in the contingency of pressing issues in the public space. In a sense, the tradition inaugurated via the EDSA Revolution is a perfect example of how interests, albeit coming from different positionalities and reaches from hegemonic status are nonetheless capable of articulating coordinated movements towards democratization. It would also be important to question and contest the increasingly “bureaucratizing” tendencies of state apparatuses that focus excessively on national housekeeping that render public spaces of accountability less transparent and open to democratic contestation of interest groups. The necessity to highlight that economic development should be preceded by democratic development is vital, since “experience shows that democracy often flourishes in poor countries. Moreover, evidence reveals that countries frequently remain poor precisely because they retain autocratic political structures. A development first strategy thus risks perpetuating the deadly cycle of poverty, conflict, and oppression” (Siegle et.al., 2004, 71).

The employment of an interweaving of national, local and social framing of issues would be important in order to wage a “viral campaign” that has the potential to contest (and eventually neutralize) the dominant neo-liberal capitalist nation-state in the advent of a more socially-democratic setup. While mapping out historical progression is always suspicious, I argue nonetheless that the institution of more socially-democratic environments can be a stepping stone towards the cultivation of a culture of citizenship that is not tied to formal institutions prone to subverting the interests of individual and community simultaneously. Through such means, the liberty and development of the individual is maintained, while affiliation towards their communities, whether it is in the locality and the nation-state, is grounded in an active stakeholder mentality and not simply as a subject beholden to given and seemingly-incontestable state apparatuses.

NOTES:

1. The concept is best elaborated upon by Michel Foucault in a text entitled, unsurprisingly, “Governmentality” (1991, 92): “The art of government, as becomes apparent in this literature, is essentially concerned with answering the question of how to introduce economy – that is to say, the correct manner of managing individuals, goods and wealth within the family (which a good father is expected to do in relation to his wife, children and servants) and of making the family fortunes prosper – how to introduce this meticulous attention of the father towards his family into the management of the state.”
2. Cultural disconnect has always been a key issue among peoples in the southern regions of the Philippines, such as how Cebuanos are prone to proclaiming that their native language Cebuano should have been the national language. A more malevolent and damaging case would be the persistence of secessionism in Mindanao, as campaigned by the Moro National Liberation Front during the 1970s led by Nur Misuari, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front up to this day, and allegedly even the terrorist network-affiliated Abu Sayyaf.
3. Interestingly, scholar Paul Hutchcroft has already called to our attention the possibilities of the Ampatuans using their power with visible extravagance since early 2008, what with their proximity to power and then-incumbent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s indebtedness to them for sweeping the votes of Maguindanao in their favor (2008, 150).
4. This, of course, has been put to lie by the very fact that the primary instigator of the 1896 Revolution, Andres Bonifacio, has been executed by factions of the Katipunan who wished to install Emilio Aguinaldo as the more competent leader outside and against the democratic process.
5. In a sense, one may be asked to suspect the introduction of a Bill of Duties (new Article V) in the proposals of the 2006 Constitutional Commission (Concom) to overhaul the 1987 Constitution as serving this particular purpose, further intensifying the intrusion of state functions into the space of individual freedom (as could be seen in this matrix prepared by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism: http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/matrix-concom-proposed-charter-amendments.pdf, accessed 15 October, 2010).
6. Originally coined by Thomas Friedman in The Lexus and The Olive Tree, it refers to the sectors of society who have access to technological and financial resources that they dictate the structuration of the global market. I appropriate this term for the purposes of referring to a school of free-thinkers in the Internet (who thrive such discussion hubs such as www.filipinovoices.com and www.antipinoy.com) who are quite venal in their upholding of neo-liberal politics and active promotion of discrediting nationalism and democracy per se.
7. That is to say, a view that “pictures society as primarily a structure of power, and views inequality as simply
   the outcome of power relationships over time among individuals and interest groups.” (Carroll 1984, 35).
8. In a minor study on party-list groups I conducted for the Ateneo School of Government during the eve of the May 2010 elections (see PoP 2010 Volume 2, Issue 1), random sampling of 10 out of 112 party lists showed that only a minority of parties are actually using the system as a means of advancing ideological and sectoral representation, with all samples being identified to be lee-ways for incumbent local and national politicians affiliated with the Arroyo regime to garner seats in Congress.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Abinales, Patricio. “Shifting Tactics: Notes on Civil Society Politics and the Power of the Local in the Philippines,” in Tambara, Vol. 25, 2008. 77-98.

Agoncillo, Teodoro A. History of the Filipino People. 8th ed. Quezon City: GaroTech, 1990.

Bello, Walden. “The dual crisis of the Philippine progressive movement,” in John Gershman and Walden Bello (eds.), Reexamining the and Renewing the Philippine Progressive Vision. Quezon City: Forum for Philippine Alternatives, 1993. 11-29.

Brown, Wendy. Politics out of History. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Carroll, John J., S.J. “Social Theory and Social Change in the Philippines,” in Pulso Vol. 1, No. 1. Institute on Church and Social Issues. 1984. 34-47.

Foucault, Michel. “Governmentality,” in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Trans. Rosi Braidotti and revised by Colin Gordon. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991. 87-104.

_____________. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated from the French by Alan Sheridan, 2nd ed. Vintage Books, Random House: New York, 1995.

Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Hedman, Eva-Lotta E. In the Name of Civil Society: From Free Election Movements to People Power in the Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2006.

Hutchcroft, Paul D. “The Arroyo Imbroglio in the Philippines,” in Journal of Democracy, Vol. 19, No. 1. January 2008. 141-155.

Juliano, Hansley. “PANIC AT THE DISCO: A review of the Party-List System and 10 Party-List groups” in Poolitikang Pinoy (PoP) 2010, Vol. 2, No. 1. Ateneo School of Government: May 2010. 1-4.

Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. 2nd ed. New York: Verso, 2001.

McCoy, Alfred, Francisco A. Scarano and Courtney Johnson. “On the Tropic of Cancer: Transitions and Transformations in the U.S. Imperial State,” in McCoy and Scarano (eds.), Colonial Crucible: Empire in the Making of the Modern American State. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009. 3-33.

Mouffe, Chantal. (interviewed by Mike Power). “A Radical Left Project?” in Wilks and Stuart (eds.), Talking About Tomorrow: A New Radical Politics. London: Pluto Press, 1993. 109-116.

Quimpo, Nathan Gilbert. Contested Democracy and the Left in the Philippines After Marcos. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2008.

Schaffer, Frederic Charles. The Hidden Costs of Clean Election Reform. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2009.

Siegle, Joseph T., Michael M. Weinstein, and Morton H. Halperin. “Why Democracies Excel” in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, No. 5. September-October 2004. 57-71.

The Spaces of Resistance, long in indefinite hiatus, is now back!

We will be attempting to post as consistently and as more frequently as possible in light of new developments in Philippine and Atenean politics. Rest assured we will not frustrate you once again. With more writers currently joining our ranks, we promise you a more active and more enlightening experience.

I thought this up in the spare time I have between reviewing for long tests and finals. Allow me to provide a short and humble argument for a Social Democratic Philippine State in three parts based on the three core principles of Social Democracy – Freedom, Equality, and Solidarity.

Let us begin with the question: are we truly free?

There is a prevalent misconception with regards to the notion of freedom, in the sense that it has become a freedom of individualist self-exclusion instead of the more tenable collectivist self-inclusion. Freedom is a word that connotes justice, but there is no justice in Philippine society. Our country is not free, for its people are bound by the fetters of individualism and disaffection. The Filipino, today, is not free, because he is limited by the invisible hand of the market. Freedom for the Filipino is economic freedom and not political freedom – and therefore his wants are economic wants, his needs are economic needs, his politics is social and thereby anti-political. Freedom has with it a dualistic nature – we are granted freedom in the effort to encourage responsibility, and when we do not oblige this responsibility we cast ourselves away from the political space. Freedom is not merely the freedom from scarcity, it is beyond the economy of needs and wants, freedom appends itself into the sacred halls of public participation, of the collective, of the people gathered and not the bureaucracy that commands.

Freedom is not the freedom to buy a Lexus, the freedom to put up a business, the freedom to build an abode – those are rights and rights do not necessarily denote freedom. Because even in a society where all rights are provided for, such as ours, the question of our freedom remains a tenable if not entirely important question. It is the mentality of market-driven rationality that denies us of the ability to engage in the politics of liberty, justice and freedom. There is a question of economics, yes, but before that, and above that, there is the question of politics – and that is the fundamental question, it is the question that circumscribes the initial question of this exposition.

Democratic structures must be strengthened, rendered tenable, and open – because in the current neo-liberal framework, society has been cast away from the halls of the state, set in constant opposition to the government that presides. That is not democracy, well at the very least that is not a democracy that works. The state, now freed from the chains of the political responsibility of the people has set upon hiding beneath the veil of its devolution of power, its engendering of a politics of patronage and rent-seeking under the veneer of privatization – the state has become more powerful under the assumption that we have made it less powerful, because now it works under the dictates of results derived from self-efficacy, founded on the laws of the market. Not one process is political, not one process is under the jurisdiction of the people, it is the state that dictates, the state that manages, the state that provides – but without our consent, without our knowledge, without our participation. Focus on individualism has given the state primacy to reduce our responsibilities and a reduction in responsibility is congruent with a reduction of freedom.

Social democracy is the key to attaining political freedom – in it, there is the promise of mutual responsibility based on the currency of action and not of market rationality. The social democratic argument is based on the rejection of this politics of un-freedom, individual responsibility is key in political participation, and instead of rejecting this responsibility as neo-liberalism does, it underscores it – social democracy is an affirmation of the dualism of freedom, and in this affirmation necessitates the promotion and engendering of true political freedom. Freedom in social democracy is the freedom to participate in governance, without the question of economics, because the market does not dictate the politics of the state – in the contrary, the market is utilized as a tool, rather than the market using individual actors including the state. Social democracy allows us to own the political process once again, it allows us to be part of it once again – the beginning is in our awakening to the light of the dawn of a promise of freedom founded on the fundamental principles of a democracy that works. When we release ourselves from the neoliberal bias, we become open to political participation through other means besides the neo-liberal notion of “choice”.

Freedom of participation necessarily entails a politics of equality not of egalitarianism – of solidarity and not of homogenized unity. The argument for social democracy through the lens of freedom is simple then: infinite responsibility to the other manifested in infinite responsibility in the process of nation-building actively pursued not only through programs that provide simplistic solutions to questions of needs but in the larger arena of political discourse.

Throughout the unfolding of history the twin slogans of hope and change have mostly been prostituted and peddled with much ruthlessness and aggression. Underneath the skillful adornment of such buzzwords is a traitorous ambition to write an eschatological account for political life that hails the well-managed bureaucratic nation as the only imaginable habitus for politics with the free market as the only optimal structure of economic organization. Hope and Change have been the golden calves of our time with most of us uncritically worshipping the various gods they represent: a promise of inevitable uniform global progress; a prospect for a tranquil end to all political and historic conflict; and a satisfying ‘social’ existence through ‘legitimate’, ‘process-oriented’, and ‘formal’ mechanisms. The great violence that undergirds all of these is the unapologetic exploitation of the human soul’s ability to genuinely hope, communicate, and act within the context of a vibrant community.

At present, the Philippines is once again under the charming aura of an election season. Arguably, the system of free, fair, and regular elections has been significant for the entry of unorthodox voices in the arena of institutional politics. However, what is increasingly alarming is the content of the discursive map being drawn by the contemporary operators of such a mechanism: that the pinnacle of political life today is the translation of our aspirations into the singular aim of securing and/or enhancing the present order. The political contest is adjudicated in terms of who can deliver the most efficient solutions to day-to-day problems. The destination aimed at, it seems, is a society whose affairs are neatly managed by a benign Leviathan while the corresponding task demanded from the people is to lay down their arms, strip off their labels, aspire for a goal of progress, and work industriously for ‘the good of all’, whatever that may be.

What this all tells us is that our times are symptomatic of a kind of hunger that emerged after the collapse of most non-democratic regimes in the last century—including one in our very own backyard. With a collective fear of unmitigated power resting on the hands of a single person or a few people, present political efforts are expended over making sure that authority is to be distributed to ‘neutral’ machine-like and regulative institutions. Change, at the most, is to be done within the lines of predictability; hope, consequently, is to be defined as an anticipation of a factual certainty, a sense of sureness that can only be drawn from well-calculated probabilities and circumstances.

The increasing loss of faith in politics figures out well today in our commemoration of a Revolution that was once the source of strength and courage of a distraught people. The sea of yellow that once glowed brightly along Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue—as if to visually represent the radiant hope dwelling within the streets—has since then become some sort of a curious artifact encased in fragile glass which can be viewed from distance yet at the same time, cannot be held by the bareness of human hands. We find in the Filipino today a cynicism shot against beginnings—natality, if one prefers Arendtian language—out of pure distaste for the political. The dwindling number of people flocking to commemorate the Revolution every passing year is evidence of exhaustion in the otherwise resolute Filipino spirit.

What went wrong?

At best, we can only scavenge for pieces from the data of history. Perhaps the fault was in the hurried return to the politically questionable perspective that prioritized unrelenting growth and progress, thereby causing the abandonment of the democratic project once the bare institutional minimum was achieved. Perhaps the error was in reinstating into power the very same bloc that dominated the pre-authoritarian clientilist State. Perhaps the blunder was in the return to State strategies that employed both discursive and actual violence that muffled alternative voices in the ground. Or did we perhaps commit a mistake in waging the Revolution, as it was just a blanket of fictitious hopefulness for the country? Reverting to the final explanation is dangerous: it invites the notion that revolutions are mere fantasy formations conjured out of thin air—a transitory drug that sterilizes dismal conditions in order to prepare for a bigger, brighter future where there can  no longer be any faults. This perspective snatches away the interwoven narratives, experiences and struggles that lead up to a political revolution. Moreover, it relegates the animating spirit of revolutionary action into a mere mechanism of governmentality. In defining revolutions as such, we are courting the specters of anti-democracy—its ethereal charm, its powerful guarantees, its poisonous evocation of ungrounded victory—back into the polity. In contrast to all of these, revolutions are political encounters, exchanges, and even opposition by warm bodies in the public space.

In retrieving the spirit of the democratic revolution and allocating it to our own political topography, there is a supplemental need to reappraise our notions of hope and change. A metaphysics for these concepts is inspiring and a good critical juncture at best, but if we leave them hanging within the ranks of collective highfalutin phantasmagoria we betray the struggle purportedly waged in the name of politics. Freedom and democracy are far from empty words: they are charged with the baggage of history and a responsibility for the future. What is asked from us by the active reminder of our revolutionary past is a response in the form of a politics for hope—one that harks back to the past either to ensure that unfreedom will never happen again or to learn valuable lessons from it; one that toils with and for others at the present; and one that commits itself to a future that does not dictate a singular end.  The radical democratic spirit solicits much from the ethos of revolutions (though not exclusively); hence, our commitments for democracy must go beyond the realm of attitudes and structures that coddle us from the ruggedness of genuine political life so that we may bring about a transformation of the very processes that shape our constitution as individuals and as a people.

Isang nahuling paggunita hindi sa pagkatao ni Jose Rizal kundi sa kung ano ang nais sabihin at iparating ni Jose Rizal

ni Hansley A. Juliano

Buong buhay ko, wala kayong ginawa kundi husgahan ako, basahin ako. Kinuha niyo na ang lahat sa akin. Kung anu-anong hiningi ninyo, pero hindi niyo pa rin makita kung sino ako. Marami na akong ibinigay, bakit pati ang buhay ko? Patahimikin niyo na ako, para makita ko ang sarili ko!

- Jose Rizal, sa pagganap ni Cesar Montano

At oo nga naman, ano nga ba ang sinabi ni Rizal sa isa sa kanyang mga huling liham bago siya mamatay kahapon ng 7:03 ng umaga:

Ilibing niyo ako sa lupa. Lagyan ninyo ng panandang bato at krus. Ang aking pangalan, araw ng kapanganakan at ng kamatayan. Wala nang iba. Kung pagkatapos ay nais niyong bakuran ang aking puntod, maaari niyong gawin. WALA NANG ANIBERSARYO. Mas mabuti kung sa Paang Bundok. Kaawaan ninyo si Josephine.

- Jose Rizal, Sa aking pamilya, Isang liham na walang petsa.

The brutal massacre of at least sixty-four individuals in Ampatuan, Maguindanao brings to the fore the vastly ignored problem of endemic political violence in Philippine elections. It has brought to light, once more, the grave danger of a culture of warlordism in the context of weak state presence – a culture that relies on impunity and uses fear as its main currency. The loss of sixty-four lives in Maguindanao opens our eyes to the reality of the state of the Philippine nation today – a reality that begs us to peer closer into the delicate socio-political structures that make up our country.

The ASSEMBLY calls for solidarity in view of the great tragedy that beset us on the twenty third of November THE ASSEMBLY calls for solidarity in grief for the departed but moreover in their call for justice. Not only for the sixty-four who just recently lost their lives, but for all those whose lives were wasted in the name of power and privilege.

It is but only fitting that a citizenry demand nothing less from its government than the maintenance of peace and the pursuit of communal good. It is nothing less than just that the Filipino nation demands that, in this pursuit of peace and freedom, those who trespassed the lines that delineate our basic human morals should be held accountable – it is only proper that those who are responsible for the Ampatuan Massacre be brought to face the consequences of their base act of violating human life and dignity at an unimaginable scale. It is only proper that the Filipino community begins this struggle for justice from hereon – a struggle to recognize the human reality of our nation’s politics; whether it be the reality of its misinterpretation, abuse, or the lack thereof.

The Question of Violence in Mindanao

In light of the confusion brought about by the events of the twenty third of November, the great debate of the Moro state has once again come into question – a debate which THE ASSEMBLY deems as a misunderstanding with regards to the political and social situation in Mindanao, Maguindanao in particular. The ASSEMBLY deems it prudent, that in order to avoid a sordid repetition of the grave acts committed in the debate, there should be a proper inspection into the structures upon which our politics is founded.

First and foremost, the ASSEMBLY rejects persistent claims that the eruption of violence in Mindanao is an issue that finds roots in the socio-cultural and ethnic “nature” of politics in Mindanao, particularly in the provinces of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Instead, we affirm that this recent outburst has less to deal with Islamist radicalism, Pan-Islamic nationalism or inherent socio-cultural traditions than with the lack of strong state presence in the region. This lack of strong state presence finds roots in the delicate yet flawed structure employed by governments past in their pursuit of taming the violence in Mindanao. The promotion of local warlords as means by which central government could neutralize elements that pose a threat to national security has brought forth a sense of traditional politics that finds sole meaning in the existence of local strongmen who had been anointed to control the region with an iron fist.

This problem stems further, into the first years of American colonialism when differentiation was established to alienate the Moro people in an effort to employ imperialistic “divide and conquer” methods. This alienation between Mindanao and the rest of the Philippines vis-a-vis the imprudent disregard of socio-cultural contexts upon the settling of Mindanao continued to create a volatile mix that erupted first with the tensions brought about by state-sponsored terror during the Marcos era and the ensuing emergence of separatist movements. The mass shedding of blood that occurred later on, and the problems raised by the proposition of alternatives posited by groups like the MILF and the MNLF has driven the state to promote inadequate responses to these alternatives – instead of development-oriented solutions, administration after administration has turned to a policy protracted war: be it diplomatic relations or all-out war, the premise of “the Mindanao Question” lies in the reified existence of conflict postulates. This, buttressed by the locally-employed warlords who have been rewarded important political posts in exchange of their support. The failure of the state to recognize the unique situation in Mindanao, in the years after the monumental signing of the 1996 GRP-MNLF peace agreement under President Fidel Ramos, can be considered its greatest blunder.

The state’s policy of reliance on local warlords like the Ampatuans is reflected by directives issued by Malacanang itself that give local officials freedom to deputize and arm civilian volunteers as “force multipliers” in the effort to combat insurgency[1] – at a basic level, the state has given local leaders free reign in forming private militias. The central government’s hands-off policy, has clearly worked towards a catastrophic end – the likes of which we bore witness to, when these “force multipliers” were supposedly utilized in the systematic murder of the warlord’s enemies.

It was the failure of the state to establish its presence by means that do not follow the way of the gun that enabled violence of this scale. Further, it is in the acknowledgement and the promotion of fear and terror as a means of pacification that violence naturally follows. The warlords of Mindanao, and for that matter, warlords in general shall continue to have personal discretion over the lives of their constituents for as long as they receive anointment from Manila – for as long as the State continues to delegate its duties. These warlords will continue to strike with impunity as long as the state refuses to establish itself firmly in the effort to secure the welfare of the people and in promoting freedom and peace throughout the countryside.

Responsible Citizenship

The ASSEMBLY further calls for responsible citizenship in deference to the need to express ourselves in the greater fight for justice for the victims of political violence. The heroism exhibited by many among us after the onslaught of natural catastrophes should differ not from our call for justice. Despite the distance, it should be our prerogative to continue to be affected, to never cease to be disturbed. Our situation as students can never be considered as one of hopelessness – avenues by which the student population can direct its passions are more than self-evident. Concrete solutions need not be contained within the dispersal of relief goods, the creative and non-violent expression of opinion may seem abstract but it can be as concrete as an effort to clean-up mud-stricken streets – the effect of a demand for justice by a united society can be as far-reaching as any “concrete” mobilization to help our countrymen in a time of grave need. It is through responsible citizenship that the power of the state is checked, and continuously perused – a dormant and docile citizenry enables the same kind of violence that erupted in Mindanao. An irresponsible citizenry can be held just as accountable as an excessive or impotent state.

In line with the call for a citizenry that responsibly checks the power of the state, the ASSEMBLY also asks for this duty at the most foundational of all levels – we respect the common good, the dignity of life and the diversity of cultures and society. Responsible citizenship begins with this adherence to the principles of human morality, driven by respect and deference to the opinions, beliefs and creeds of others. It is this mutual respect that shapes the contours of our freedom and defines the meaning of our democracy. Our Republic is founded on the basic principle that all men are after all, created equal, that it is in our diversity that we are one. Responsible citizenship extends into our individual ability to live peacefully among people of different socio-cultural contexts. Freedom is founded in a responsible citizenry’s ability to admit that in the midst of our individual differences, we can live co-equally and peaceably under the umbrella of a nation that stands indivisible despite adversity.

The Divorce from the Political

The gravest mistake one can commit from concluding upon the causes and effects of the Ampatuan massacre is that, this sole act of human indignity stems from the political. If anything, the violence that occurred on the twenty third of November was caused by the separation from the political. It was the absence of freedom in the context of a true democracy that caused the sudden and wanton eruption of violence. It was the misunderstanding of the political realm that created distortions that allowed the state and its warlord allies to enable their destructive relationship. It was the divorce from the political that allowed warlords to strike with impunity, knowing well that there will be no repercussions – thriving on the assumption no one would care about whatever they intended to do regardless of the audacity, of the brazenness, of the sheer barbarity of their act. Politics did not cause the Ampatuan massacre, it was the lack of politics, the divorce from the political and the reification of a politics understood to be pestiferous and preponderant, subsequently abandoned for liberal pleasures – a culture of diffidence that permeates the Philippine political structure. In the words of Edmund Burke, All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

+

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam