This makes Filipinos a special breed of human beings since they are living in the most disaster-prone part of the world. Situated inside the Pacific Ring of Fire, the Philippines manages to withstand a record number of strong typhoons, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions every year. (We eat disasters for breakfast). Indeed, the land is blessed with abundant natural resources but everyday is a struggle to survive the violent elements of nature. Filipinos are trapped.

Many foreigners find the Philippines majestic and enchanting but it’s actually a difficult place to live. President Gloria Arroyo described it as a “densely populated, rocky archipelago with relatively few sources of fresh water.” Gregorio Brillantes thinks it’s made up of “strange, incompatible islands amid ambiguous seas.” Only the blind and clueless like Standard and Poor’s would hail it as an ‘island of calm’.

Here lies the uniqueness of this place and the people who inhabit it. In these ‘sand-and-coconut-tree’ islands of volcanoes, giant crocodiles, and exotic coral reefs, the people are too busy to be bored with life. Hence the feasting, the merrymaking, the fighting, the taming of the terrain.

To borrow some words from Alexander Herzen, Filipinos belong to geography rather than to history. And as E.H. Carr reminded us, beware of people without history because they are potentially revolutionary.

Manila’s vulnerability

Manila is an easy target. Colonial powers were able to subjugate it by attacking from the seas. Limahong, the English, the Americans, the Japanese – all of them invaded Manila through the western corridor. Even today, foreign powers and aggressors are able to terrorize us by sending their nuclear warships and oversized quasi-military fishing boats near our shores.

Corregidor served as Manila’s first line of defense against invading forces but other than this ‘rock’ fortress, our colonial masters have failed to establish a solid naval defense system to protect the capital. Maybe because the colonizers, after imposing military hegemony in the city, were too busy fighting the barbarians, pagans, and other disobedient indios in the mountains that beefing up the coastal defenses became a secondary priority for them.

Bonifacio was certainly not the country’s first guerilla but he provided the blueprint on how to invade the city from the suburbs and mountains. From the vantage point of his rebel base in Montalban, he directed his troops to attack Manila from several key locations: From the east, the San Mateo and Marikina forces will attempt to shut down El Deposito in San Juan which at that time controlled Manila’s water supply. From the north, Caloocan and Tondo forces will attack Binondo churches, hospitals, and the telegraph and railway lines. From the south east, Taguig, and Pateros forces will cross the Pasig River, establish a base in the hills of Hagdang Bato (Mandaluyong) and Guadalupe (Makati), and proceed to attack Pandacan and Sta. Ana. From the central suburb, Sampaloc forces will attack Sta Mesa and Quiapo. From the south, Cavite forces led by Aguinaldo will attack Ermita, Luneta, and finally Intramuros.

Based on this plan (details provided in Zeus Salazar’s book, August 29-30, 1896: Bonifacio’s Battle for Manila), we now know that Bonifacio was also an outstanding military tactician. He understood the strategic value of maximizing the mountainous terrain around Manila to attack the capital. In the second phase of the revolution, Bonifacio’s idea of establishing a mountain rebel lair was successfully realized in Biak na Bato.

Combine the attack route used by the colonizers and Katipuneros and what emerges is an enduring formula to effectively dominate the capital, at least from a military perspective.

Will the ‘Nice People Around’ who are exercising Red Power in the boondocks grab this attack recipe as a gift from History? Or maybe, after four decades of waging a people’s war, they might just surprise us one day with a demonstration of their updated and hopefully, upgraded version of how ‘political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’

Island Dynamics

The central part of the archipelago of what has come to be known as the Philippine state is composed of small and medium-sized islands. These islands are Palawan, Panay, Negros, Cebu, Samar, Leyte, Bohol, Mindoro, Romblon, and Masbate. Island mentality is most evident in these places. It’s political, economic, and social manifestations deserve to be probed further.

The current system of classifying the islands into various provinces under different political regions blurs the existence of what we call island mentality. Decades of gerrymandering and Imperial Manila’s desperate but egotistical aim of pacifying the islands have almost severed the organic ties of these islands.

Palawan was made part of Luzon when just two generations ago it was still part of Minsupala (Mindanao, Sulu, Palawan). In fact, the Moro people consider it as part of their ancestral domain. Panay was subdivided into six provinces. The case of Masbate is interesting: It’s officially part of the Bicol region but geographically, it’s within the Visayas range. In fact, there are towns in the province whose dominant languages are not Bicolano nor Masbateno but Cebuano, Hiligaynon, and even Waray.

Estancia in Panay is nearer to Roxas City than Iloilo City but it’s part of Iloilo Province. Roxas is known by everybody as the country’s seafood capital but nearby Estancia in a neighboring province prides itself as the ‘Alaska of the Philippines’ because it supplies the fish needs of many provinces. It gets more complicated. There are many Estancia college students who come from Masbate. Asked about the direction of Masbate, residents will just answer ‘over there’ or ‘one lantsa ride away.’

More examples: Despite being part of Western Visayas, Boracay buys its seafood supply from Romblon, a province of Luzon. Dumaguete is a university town in Negros Oriental but many of its students come from north and west Mindanao, particularly in Dipolog and Dapitan.

Negros Occidental is Western Visayas while Negros Oriental is Central Visayas. But there are towns in Negros Occidental which are literally and figuratively closer to the Central Visayas region. During a solidarity event with Escalante City farmers in north Negros which I recently attended, most of the student participants didn’t come from Bacolod but from Cebu and Bohol. I learned that the northern and eastern sides of Negros Occidental are actually closer to north Cebu than to Western Visayas. There are ferry rides that transport residents of north Negros to north Cebu and vice versa.

Island mentality is neither good nor bad. Arroyo successfully cultivated and benefited from this political dynamic when she received the support of Cebu’s ruling political families and parties in 2004. Isn’t it tragic that one person (Big Boss Danding) seems to control the present and future of Negros Island?

Then and now, the wealth and resources of the islands are monopolized by a few families. The money is siphoned off to Manila where absentee landlords hideously spend their idle time on non-essential goods and services. We are unforgiving to poor migrants who are swarming like rats in Manila yet we seem to forget that the city’s wealth is based on the ruthless accumulation of capital by despotic families in the rural islands.

The dominant attitude in Imperial Manila is to maintain and widen the division of the islands. This is a legacy of the colonial era. What is needed is a revolutionary force capable of uniting the islands to challenge the tyranny of the reigning political blocs.

Perhaps this is the reason why at one point in the 1980s, the Visayas Commission of the Communist Party generated so much fear and respect in the region. Maybe for many people, it allowed them to imagine a different future.

Archipelagic warfare

Even his critics admit that Jose Maria Sison’s Specific Characteristics of Our People’s War is an outstanding contribution to Marxist literature. The document affirmed Sison’s reputation as an original Marxist thinker but more than that, it comprehensively discussed the appropriateness of using the innovative path taken by the victorious Chinese Communist Party under the leadership of Mao Zedong. At the same time, it underscored the particularity of the Philippine People’s War by identifying the challenges and advantages of launching a nationwide guerrilla war in an archipelagic country like the Philippines.

This is a must-read for all students of politics. It can explain why the rag tag Red Army of peasant rebels has managed to survive in the past four decades. It’s also a brilliant exposition of the link between geography, military warfare, and revolutionary politics.

Sison noted that in launching the People’s War, the more important considerations are population, forest area and the country’s mountainous terrain. But is guerrilla warfare applicable in an archipelago?

“In the long run, the fact that our country is archipelagic will turn out to be a great advantage for us and a great disadvantage for the enemy. The enemy shall be forced to divide his attention and forces not only to the countryside but also to so many islands. Our great advantage will show when we shall have succeeded in developing guerrilla warfare on a nationwide scale.”

“If on one hand the archipelagic character of the country has a narrowing effect on our fighting fronts, its mountainous character has both a broadening and deepening effect.”

The narrowing and broadening effect of the terrain led Sison to describe the war in the Philippines as “intensive, ruthless and exceedingly fluid.” He required all fighting fronts to practice self –reliance by reminding them that the rebels have no “powerful rear” to retreat unlike the rebels in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos which shared land borders with Red China.

In the 1970s, Sison anticipated the building of a central revolutionary base in north Luzon

“Amidst the twenty guerrilla bases and zones already in existence and on the basis of the experience gained in creating them, the central leadership can proceed to establish the central revolutionary base somewhere in the well-inhabited mountainous area of Northern Luzon. The guerrilla bases and zones of Northeast Luzon, Northwest Luzon and Central Luzon can stand as the future terminals of regular mobile forces that are to arise at the central revolutionary base.”

Since the Communist Party will never publish the current status and other details of the People’s War, we can only speculate that this central revolutionary base has yet to be established.

Meanwhile, Sison echoed the attack formula of Bonifacio

“On the eve of the nationwide seizure of power, Manila-Rizal shall be caught in a pincer between regular mobile forces from the north and from the two regions of Southern Luzon.”

Sison also mentioned the need to develop sea warfare.

“Because our country is archipelagic, it is a matter of necessity for us to develop guerrilla bases and zones along the seacoast.”

“Within the Visayas, boating is as common as trucking in the Luzon or Mindanao mainlands. If we take lessons from Southwestern Mindanao, especially from Sulu archipelago, we can further develop sea warfare, a form of guerrilla warfare making use of small bancas (boats) and big as well as small islands. This would constitute a good support for our guerrilla warfare on land.”

Rejecting Sison’s strategy, the controversial Popoy Lagman mocked the emphasis given by Sison to geography in advancing the revolution: “So this is what is specific to the Philippines: its terrain!”

But the intellectual Lagman should know better that Sison had more than adequately written about the ‘paritcularities’ and ‘specifics’ of the Philippine revolution. His ideological differences with Sison must have blinded him from recognizing the other salient points raised by the author. But I’ll put forward an even more daring idea: Even if Sison’s only output is this document which I have summarized in this article, his stature as a Marxist intellectual is assured.

Because after the political line is established, and if the fighting forces are already positioned, the next important consideration is the discussion of the terrain. It’s the terrain, stupid.

Related articles:

Bundok, dagat, pulitika
Labanan sa Tubigan
Rice Revolution
East-West
Power dynamics in the islands

“Can you imagine a tricycle driver being able to draft a law?” Commission on Elections Chairman Jose Melo asked the petitioners who wanted to disqualify Mikey Arroyo as a partylist representative. This remark can be dismissed as sheer intellectual elitism but it is a popular thinking among the chattering classes which is why we have to correct this myopic view of the poor and uneducated.

So can the poor really speak for themselves? Can workers excel as legislators? Answer: Crispin Beltran.

Beltran or Ka Bel was a veteran activist and legendary labor leader who became a partylist representative in 2001. His outstanding three-term stint in Congress should have already convinced us that the poor are more than capable of articulating their own beliefs and aspirations.

For those who still need more persuading, though, I highly recommend the new book about Beltran, Ka Bel: Mga Liham, which presents his ideas and political principles through a studied selection of his letters and speeches. It is an impressive follow-up to the first biography about Beltran written by Ina Alleco Silverio which provided readers a glimpse of the remarkable struggles that the ‘Grand Old Man” of Philippine labor fought in his lifetime.

Ka Bel: Mga Liham will shock readers who expected to read a dry collection of political manifestos. Ofcourse, a book about Beltran will have to unavoidably discuss politics and labor issues. (Readers who wanted a fresh perspective on the labor movement will not be disappointed.) However, by including Beltran’s revealing and ‘instructive’ letters to his wife and children, the book offers much more, allowing readers a glimpse into the private (but nonetheless political) life of Ka Bel.

This book will be appreciated too by non-activists, especially students of history, since Beltran’s letters are filled with amusing historical vignettes. For example, Beltran mentioned the cost of sending money through telegraphic transfer in 1969 or that moviegoers can choose to watch movies in the orchestra section of cinema houses (Beltran wrote that he watched Bastards and The Great Catherine).

Beltran’s letters are valuable in helping clarify the decisions made by the labor movement in the past forty-years. For example: Why did it oppose Marcos’ democratic revolution? Why did it reject Franklin Drilon as Labor Secretary? Why did labor unions stage a walkout against the retention of US military bases? What caused the split in the labor sector in the 1990s?

Hopefully, Beltran’s letters will enlighten the public about the meaning of working-class consciousness. What does it really mean to wholly embrace the proletarian viewpoint? The big capitalists and their apologists who liked to denounce Beltran as a heartless communist might be surprised to read what Beltran wrote about his military escort after escaping from prison: “Kaawa-awa naman siya. Kahit siya military, mahirap din siyang tulad natin…at dahil sa pagtakas ko siya rin ay tiyak na makukulong. Ngunit nagkataon lang na siya ang aking guwardiya.”

Beltran is a fine example of a working-class leader who remained loyal to his principles and a militant advocate of democratic politics until his tragic death in 2008. How did he envision the emancipation of the poor? Definitely, he didn’t ask for charity. This passage is worth quoting: “Isa tayo sa angaw-angaw na mahihirap. Tayo rin ang papanday sa kinabukasan natin….Turuan sila na kaya tayo mahirap dahil sa may nagpapahirap sa atin. Hanapin at itakda ang paraan ng pagbaka sa kanila.”

While in detention in 2006, Beltran issued this short handwritten note to media in response to the declaration of a state of national emergency in the country: “The hungry and angry must kill this [PP1017] animal of gluttony and tyranny. The imposition must be swept away by the democratic human tsunami into the dustbin of history. I am committed to partake in this rare lexicon for national freedom and democracy.” A rare lexicon indeed!

Beltran’s entry into Congress didn’t stop him from speaking out what he genuinely feels and thinks about the anti-labor institutions in the country: “Mr. Speaker, namaos na ang kinatawang ito sa kakapaliwanag kaisa ng mga manggagawa tungkol sa pagiging walang hiya at inutil ng mga regional wage boards. Mula nang itayo ang mga taksil na wage boards na yan noong 1989, wala na silang ginawa kundi ipako ang sahod sa sahig at tiyaking hindi ito itaas, ayun na rin sa kagustuhan ng malalaking negosyante at kapitalista.”

This book also pays tribute to Beltran’s family who supported him and embraced his advocacies until the end of his life. His wife, Ka Osang, actively campaigned for his freedom during the Marcos dictatorship (she called the police “komikong tutang tuliro sa sirkus” in an assembly); and many of his children became activists as well.

The ‘public’ Beltran may be the outspoken critic of the bad government conniving with big business but the ‘private’ Beltran is a familiar father figure in a typical Filipino family. He is the head of the family who is constantly worried about money (“Ako’y uuwi kapag mayroon nang sapat na pera”) and the situation of his wife and children. Beltran, who was one of the early settlers in Payatas, remained poor even after becoming a congressman, , a story that is the cause of amazement for many in a country where dipping into the public treasury for personal gain is almost a norm.

It can be gleamed from the letters that the ‘public’ Beltran and ‘private’ Beltran are both political. Beltran consistently reminded his family to live simply and to struggle hard with the masses. Even his New Year’s Resolutions for his family reflected his political standpoint: “Iwasan ninyo ang kayabangan o pagmamalaki. Laging mapagkumbaba at kaisa ng mahihirap – mabangis (ayon sa prinsipyo) sa mga mapang-api at kaaway.”

It is not often that the writings of working-class heroes are compiled and published which makes this book a gem in Philippine political literature. The publisher should be commended since this book can raise awareness and revive interest about the lives and struggles of other working-class icons.

The next book about Beltran should tackle his accomplishments inside the House of Representatives. At one point, Beltran filed the most number of bills and resolutions in Congress. Researchers can access the House journals and official transcript of records to check how Beltran argued his points and debated with other members of Congress.

Hopefully, this book would target the international audience since it is about time that we share and spread the story of the late great Beltran. I am particularly interested too about Beltran’s activities in the 1980s, the most strike prone decade in the history of Philippine labor.

Beltran died almost three years ago but his political legacy continues to be relevant. Traditional politicians have many things to learn from Beltran’s principled life. Remember, for instance, his last shining moment in Congress, when he divulged in a privilege speech an attempt by the Arroyo government to bribe him. A fellow legislator,
ridiculing the attempt, publicly said it was “like bribing the Pope” – a testament to Ka Bel’s record of incorruptibility.

Recall, too, the manner by which Congressman Beltran died, hammer in hand – a working man to the very end; and compare it with how many others who claim to be “public servants” enrich themselves through corruption and greed.

Truly, this country lost a great and honorable leader in 2008. Though future generations of Filipinos will no longer see Ka Bel addressing thousands with a fiery speech in the parliament of the streets, or debating in congress as a representative of the toiling class, his legacy as well as the principles he fought for remains, to be read in his letters.

Related article:

Tribute speech to Ka Bel

Bello said he withdrew his opposition to the CCT because the ‘facts’ have changed. He clarified that his initial negative impression of the program was based on a “reflex suspicion of it as still another ill-conceived World Bank-supported scheme.”

With this reasoning, Bello admitted that he is ready to issue statements and speeches based merely on knee-jerk impulses. Bello, the respected leftist intellectual, could be suffering already from a trapo syndrome: Deliver a speech today, but study the facts later.

By claiming that his delayed epiphany was brought about by a careful examination of the CCT facts, he arrogantly accuses the consistent critics of the CCT of dogmatically opposing the program. It may be his habit to rant without investigating but he should not assume that those who reject the CCT are also like him.

But what is most ridiculous with Bello’s excuse is that, in truth, the FACTS have not changed at all. The CCT of the Arroyo era is the same CCT today. The primary objectives and basic features of the CCT of the Arroyo and Aquino administrations are similar. (But Aquino’s CCT could be worse because its financing is to be sourced through foreign loans.) By praising the small wonders of CCT, Bello is also praising Arroyo who introduced it in the country three years ago.

Then and now, the CCT involves the distribution of cash to poor families under certain conditionalities. Through this intervention, the state hopes that the curse of poverty would magically go away. These are the basic facts of the CCT. Nothing has changed. It is Bello’s opinion that changed. He claims he is merely a stickler for facts but we say that his sudden turnaround smacks of political opportunism.

Bello is also guilty of spreading malicious information about the position of the militant left on certain political issues. He accused the left of signing an anti-CCT manifesto prepared by the Arroyo camp. Wrong. It is the progressive block which drafted the manifesto signed by more than 30 legislators.

And Bello reveals his naïve perception of political reality as he continues to insist that Arroyo’s signature in the anti-CCT petition is proof of the supposed alliance between the Arroyo faction of the ruling elite and the militant left. If we follow his logic, then we can say that Bello and company are aligning themselves with Imelda Marcos who supports the CCT as a lifeline to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Imelda is the chairperson of the Special MDG Committee in the Lower House.

Bello’s obsession with the ‘unholy alliance’ thesis led him to condemn once more the left’s rejection of the CARPER or the amended land reform law which Bello interprets as the left’s betrayal of its pro-peasant bias. On the charge that we voted against CARPER, we plead guilty. Why would we support a flawed land reform law? On the charge that we slept with the sugar barons, we deny it. Vehemently, we deny it. It is Bello and his party which should explain why the landlords voted in favor of CARPER last year. (Check the voting records). Even the four Arroyos and other hacienderos in Negros became CARPER supporters after successfully inserting their amendments in the plenary debates.

It is evident that the CCT facts have not changed and the ‘unholy alliance’ Bello was alluding to exists only in his wild imagination. So why did he twist the facts and why spew out more than the usual dosage of anti-left poison in the cyberspace? I think it is more than just a personal commitment to defend Noynoy and the government’s centerpiece poverty reduction program. I think it has more to do with defending his integrity as a leftist intellectual.

Bello committed the nakakahiyang blunder of publicly criticizing the CCT only to retract his words after a few days. This is unprecedented and unbelievable even for the gutter standards of the Lower House. Bello’s sudden turnaround has exposed him to the global community as a sham progressive no different from the unprincipled crooks in Congress. And perhaps to divert attention away from his colossal blunder, he had to invent lies and resort to a tired reactionary tactic of invoking the specter of totalitarianism. It is interesting to note that Bello warned against self-styled ‘professional revolutionaries’ whom the philosopher Sartre, after visiting Cuba in the 1950s, concluded as the true individuals who can’t stand injustice.

It is time to reconsider Bello’s reputation as a committed intellectual of the left. Here is an academic who buttresses his arguments with ad hominem attacks (he called Casino a spoiled middle class intellectual). Here is an anti-globalization activist who voted in favor of the national budget which is sustained by the prescription of globalization in the form of neoliberal policies such as reducing state spending on social services while increasing the allotment for debt. Here is an avowed veteran socialist whose shallow analysis of the CCT makes him an ideal cheerleader of another deceptive World Bank-initiated program. Bello, it seems, is already an aging conservative in the guise of a progressive leftist.

Bello’s unfair remarks against the militant left also remind us of the fundamental difference between his group and ours. Bello does not only eschew the need for radical politics, he is content with being part of the ‘reigning reform coalition’ (whatever that means) headed by a super landlord. In short, the supposedly radical Bello prefers to be an apologist of the new administration.

The left does not hide its initial assessment about the Aquino presidency. There is really nothing unique with our observation that Aquino is essentially no different from his predecessor as other mainstream commentators have already pointed out. Is Aquino a tool of US imperialism? Yes he is! Bello plays blind to the true political color of his patron since he and his party are pitifully clinging to the bureaucratic state machine.

Is the militant left averse to fight for small reforms? The left has been fighting for so long and it has achieved small and big victories in the political battlefield. If the left ridicules token reforms, it is because it needs to remind the people that big, thorough-going reforms in society are needed and already possible to achieve.

And if the left continues to validate the necessity of a revolution, it is merely due to the recognition of the sad state of affairs in the country today. As Terry Eagleton explains, “Revolutions were not made in the name of a utopian future, but because of the deficiencies of the present.”

So if Bayan Muna opposes the CCT and urges the poor to fight for their dignity instead of accepting dole-outs, its aim is not to bring the poor to the ‘proletarian nirvana’ but to make them aware that there are better and more effective ways for the state to eliminate poverty in the community.

Bello is getting old but that is no excuse for him to dilute the radical content of leftist politics. Being a senior citizen does not always mean compromising one’s principles and abandoning the imperative to fight, fight, and fight for our rights. Thankfully, there are other senior citizen activists like those from the FQS generation which continues to inspire the youth about how to best serve the masses and not the puppet masters.

*Based from a quotation attributed to William Allen White: “The facts fairly and honestly presented; truth will take care of itself.”

**Aside from Casino’s article about the CCT, I also recommend Carol Araullo’s critique of the program.

Related articles:

Misunderestimating the Philippine Left
Ugly Leftist
Senior Citizen Activists
Noynoy and impossible reformism

A few days before Risa published this statement, she called for a moratorium on election mudslinging. It is unfunny that she ignored her own plea by vilifying her colleagues in Congress and fellow senatoriables Ocampo and Maza.

Did Ocampo and Maza betray their principles when they joined the senatorial ticket of Villar as adopted candidates? The emphatic answer is no. Maza and Ocampo remain committed activists and street parliamentarians who vow to advance their advocacies inside and outside Congress. Their inclusion in the Nacionalista slate is indicative of 1) Villar’s recognition of the militant left’s organized strength and his openness to adopt progressive politics if he becomes president; and 2) the sincerity of Ocampo, Maza, and the Makabayan political bloc to pursue the people’s agenda through parliamentary work.

The left has a sterling record in remaining steadfast as vanguard of the poor and oppressed while keeping a tactical alliance with bourgeois parties and politicians. The left supported Gloria Arroyo during Edsa Dos but it became critical of the new administration when Arroyo mutated into a monster. Ocampo and the late great Crispin Beltran were jailed because of their position that Arroyo must be removed from power.

The left did not financially benefit from its brief alliance with Arroyo. It was the NGO friends of Risa who received a billion peso racket from Arroyo through the so-called peace bonds. When Beltran died a poor man in 2008 despite his three-term stint as member of Congress, it gave a valuable lesson for progressives of all stripes on how to live modestly and avoid the corrupting lifestyle of many politicians.

Its exemplary attitude towards Arroyo during and immediately after Edsa Dos and its brave defiance against the Arroyo dictatorship in the past decade are the left’s best assurance that it will not “sell-out” once Villar becomes the country’s next president. Ocampo and Maza can boast of their untarnished reputation as public servants for nine years as proof that they will not abuse their links with Villar for selfish reasons. The Makabayan Coalition can easily make Villar accountable by invoking the people’s agenda document which Villar signed in a public event last December.

But for Risa and other “Liberal Talibans”, the decision of the left to support Villar is unacceptable because of their naïve belief that Noynoy is the only candidate blessed with a pure heart and good intentions. The other lie (naïve and hilarious at the same time) being peddled by the Liberal Party is that Noynoy is unlike Villar who is spending billions of pesos to win in the elections. Ano sa tingin nila ang ipinambabayad ni Noynoy at Mar sa TV at radio networks, campaigners, at local candidates ng partido sa buong bansa – autograph ni Kris at Korina?

Actually it is Risa’s support for Noynoy which smacks of opportunism. Risa initially endorsed Mar for president but when Noynoy announced his candidacy, she immediately raised the hands of Noynoy. She and her group did this even if Noynoy has not yet publicly stated his platform. Remember the assertion of Noynoy supporters who arrogantly reminded the public that based on tradition (as if the only correct behavior is to follow tradition), the period of finalizing and publishing a platform is only after parties and candidates have filed their candidacy papers? Despite his failure to advance or articulate a meaningful social policy issue, the very popular Noynoy was instantly endorsed by Risa.

Villar had to rescind the NP-KBL alliance and boldly included two militant leftists in his senate slate before he got the approval of Makabayan. Villar was endorsed by the left despite his lower public ratings because he proved to be a more sincere candidate with better track record and competence. It would have been easier for the left if it endorsed Noynoy last November or December who at that time was rating 50-60 percentage points in surveys. But our endorsement is not just based on popularity alone.

Did Risa question the inclusion of VATmen in Noynoy’s campaign team? Did Risa clarify the role of Kamag-Anak Inc. in Noynoy’s candidacy? Did she consider the plight of Hacienda Luisita workers and those who were killed in 2004 when she joined Noynoy?

Landlords like Noynoy are thankful for the amended land reform law (CARPER) which Risa supported in Congress. This law was initially being opposed by landlords in Congress but after successfully inserting their amendments last June, even the Arroyo family and other sugar barons voted in favor of this measure. Risa’s sponsorship of the pro-landlord CARPER complements Noynoy’s adamant refusal to treat the Hacienda Luisita matter as a social justice issue. To use Risa’s own words, it surprises me how easily she has sold out.

In fairness to Risa, she is a consistent critic of the militant left. This is the reason why military officials are supporting her. An anti-communist, military-backed partylist solon in Congress (sorry I can’t mention his name, baka sumikat) always enjoins the group of Risa in advocating the elimination of leftist groups from the political mainstream. Why? Because the military and Risa are mouthing the same demands against members of the legal left – that the latter should also condemn the alleged atrocities committed by the NPA; that by refusing to condemn revolutionary taxation, Ocampo, Maza and other activists are affirming their links with the NPA. Through the press statement mentioned above, Risa legitimized the “murderous lines” echoed by Jovito Palparan.

Risa, who claims to be a leftist, should know better that the group she is attacking is not a terrorist organization. The Communist Party is a revolutionary group which espouses the establishment of a new political order through revolutionary means. If she thinks that the Communist Party is a mere terrorist cell which exists to extort money from businessmen and politicians, then why did she agree to become a member of the GRP-NDF peace panel representing the Arroyo government in 2001?

As a student of politics and history, I am aware that most revolutionary groups employ various means, including use of arms, to overthrow the established order. Let us agree that there are now peaceful means to advocate change. But we can’t blame other segments of the population if they continue to think that the reign of injustice and numbing poverty in the country can only end through revolutionary violence. Even the UN recognizes the right of the people to take up arms if they think the elected government has made it impossible for the people to demand change through peaceful means.

By parroting the Palparan doctrine that NPA members are mere murderers and extortionists, isn’t Risa providing ideological justification for the continued postponement of the stalled peace talks? Isn’t this moral-booster line giving the military another reason to step up the all-out war tactic in the countryside instead of addressing the root causes of armed struggle? As leftists, isn’t it more correct and progressive to advocate peace talks and tackle the reasons why many Filipinos continue to take up arms instead of prodding activists to denounce the CPP-NPA? That the insurgency has lasted for more than four decades (the longest insurgency in Southeast Asia) means it is more than just a band of gun toting crazies who love to sread mayhem in the country.

Risa’s insinuations against Maza, Ocampo, and Makabayan members are dangerous because the military can use them to butrress its red-baiting campaign against activists in the legal arena. At least the NPA can defend themselves during military operations but unarmed activists are helpless against illegal combat and psy-war operations. Politicians like Risa, Palparan, and Arroyo who continue to link the legal left with the underground left is the reason why activists continue to be harassed, abducted, tortured, and killed in this part of the world.

Risa’s press statement is not just a demolition job aimed at Ocampo, Maza and Villar. It is part of a systematic campaign to defeat and isolate the left. From day one of campaigning, the military has been very aggressive in its illegal campaign to sabotage the candidacies of Ocampo, Maza, and Makabayan partylist groups. It sends poison letters and death threats to Makabayan candidates, leaders, supporters, and now politicians who endorse the left. Military officers conduct illegal assemblies in communities and schools to warn residents and students against voting Satur, Maza, and Makabayan candidates. Soldiers and their supporters are actively defacing the campaign posters of the left. Palparan is given substantial media time to spread lies in public. The Liberal Party spokesman questions the inclusion of communists in the Villar senate lineup. It is unfortunate that the communist bogey is being used againto get the support of the US imperialist masters.

The post-election scenario is very scary for activists and leftists.

A few years ago, Akbayan stalwarts denounced their inclusion in the so-called NPA hitlist. It turned out that the hitlist was fictitious and the Akbayan leaders who feared for their lives are still very much alive today. They raised a lot of noise in global NGO summits presenting themselves as victims of a totalitarian ideology. What was tragicomic from that affair was that the groups and activists whom Akbayan accused of having ideological and organizational links with NPA were the ones who got abducted and killed by elements close to the military.

Akbayan didn’t kill my comrades and I’m sure it has many members who sympathize with our cause but by spewing out the same malicious accusations hurled by the military against militant activists, (again to use the words of Risa) it “indirectly helps human rights violators like Palparan to commit further abuses.”

Will there be another crackdown against the ‘nondemocratic left’? The signs are evident that the anti-communist bloc will pressure the next president to intensify the war against “communist terrorists” and their “legal fronts.” Wittingly or unwittingly, Risa and her party are being used to whip up insane anti-red hysteria in the country.

Is Risa a leftist? Palparan claims he is a human rights defender; he is even a member of the House Committee on Human Rights. Is Risa a democratic leftist? Palparan is a protector of democracy. What binds Palparan, the democracy-loving general and Risa, the democratic leftist is their shared hatred against the politics of Maza, Ocampo, and Makabayan.

But is she a leftist? Her statements on land reform, living wage, debt moratorium, human rights have been described in the media as progressive. Often, she is mistaken to be a member of Anakbayan or Gabriela. Maybe her statement against the ‘nondemocratic left’ is an attempt to publicly dissociate herself from the ranks of the militant left. Fine. I’ll return the favor by paraphrasing Fredric Jameson: “We have much in common with Risa and her party, in fact virtually everything – save the essentials.”

Long live the revolutionary tradition of the left!

Also read:

Makabayan’s response to the current red-baiting…
Ang maruming laban
Hontiveros-Palparan
Palparan’s new spokesperson

The FQS was the spark that ignited the national democratic revolution in the 1970s. It triggered a political upheaval which was similar to the revolutionary impact of China’s May Fourth Movement in 1919.

The FQS militants are the country’s original internationalists. They are contemporaries of the Red Guards of Paris in 1968 and the anti-imperialist guerillas of Vietnam. They supported the national liberation struggle of Third World nations.

Together with the activists of 1960s, the FQS generation provided a blueprint on how to launch a revolution. They were the first rallyists who marched to Malacanang through the Mendiola gate. They integrated with urban poor and peasant communities to prove that the noble cause of changing the old society is possible if it is undertaken together with the masses. Hundreds of FQS students went back to the provinces to establish and expand the base of the communist movement.

By identifying the major ills of society (imperialism feudalism, bureaucrat capitalism) and the radical solution to these problems (people’s war), FQS activists raised the level of political consciousness of Filipinos. After FQS, it is already ridiculous to demand fundamental change by participating in cute political actions like fun run, charity drive, fashion protest, and planting trees.

How did activists survive the difficult martial law years? Their participation in the FQS converted them into instant revolutionaries who trust the fighting capabilities of the organized masses. The FQS produced outstanding young activists who were not afraid to risk or sacrifice their lives in order to challenge the brutal leadership of Marcos. Without the FQS, Marcos and the reactionary forces could have easily crushed the opposition.

After the downfall of Marcos, FQS activists faced a dilemma. Some of them preferred to maximize the so-called democratic space provided by the Aquino regime. Others rejected this mentality as reformist and counter-revolutionary. Many became disillusioned and kept out of the divisive debates. They joined the private sector to become academics, entrepreneurs, business executives, journalists, OFWs, and consultants.

Those who remained loyal to the politics of FQS became leaders and living legends of the legal left in the 1990s. They inspired a new breed of activists who were searching for an appropriate radical mode of politics. It was the mass movement of the FQS era which was more appealing, exciting, and revolutionary than the NGO politics of the post-Edsa milieu. It is the spirit of FQS, not Edsa, which inspired and guided the activists when they called for the ouster of Estrada in 1999 and 2000. The three representatives of Bayan Muna partylist in 2001 were FQS veterans.

2010 is a symbolic year for FQS activists. This marks the period when FQS activists, those brave young idealists of 1970, are already considered as officially old. FQS veterans are a special breed of senior citizens of the republic. They are old dissenters who are espousing a new kind of politics. They are old warriors who refused to give up the good fight. They might still have an oversupply of idealism and revolutionary optimism but they already have old and tired (and literally, tortured) bodies. In a political sense, they are “youth without youth.”

In 1970, activists probably discussed Mao, Marcos, Beatles, sex, pimples, and the New People’s Army in rallies and DGs. In 2010, FQS veterans are probably discussing Mao, Arroyo, Beatles, sex (batteries not included), high blood, diabetes, arthritis, and the New People’s Army in rallies, reunions, and cyber forum.

In 1970, young activists shocked the elders when they voluntarily embraced the natdem revolution (with a socialist perspective). In 2010, the strong resolve of FQS activists to reaffirm the politics of revolution continues to bewilder everybody. In 1970 they should be pursuing a career in government or establishing their own business but they were more interested in the mass movement. In 2010 they should be thinking about their retirement or the welfare of their families but they continue to struggle as non-conformist militants.

It is impossible for FQS activists to retire. According to a human rights lawyer, wala namang retirement pay sa kilusan. The least the movement can do is to honor the lives of its outstanding militants. There is no retirement paradise, and no Golden Acres that await FQS veterans. They are more concerned with the Five Golden Rays and the building of a revolutionary future.

Behold the senior citizen activists! Patriarchs and matriarchs of their families; leaders and pioneers of progressive politics in the Philippines.

For impressively and consistently defying unjust authorities, for standing up against a ruthless dictator, for being loyal to the revolutionary cause, for fighting the oppressors, and for serving the people in the past four decades, the FQS senior citizen activists deserve our highest praise. We are fortunate to having been born in the same era when the brilliant and fighting FQS veterans are still alive to show how young revolutionaries can grow old without losing their idealism.

Mabuhay ang mga Lolo at Lola Tibak!

Related articles:

Joma@70
The committed generations

The ‘bad left’ is always wrong. It is dogmatic if it refuses to participate in the elections but it is opportunistic if it joins the elections. It is arrogant if it shuns coalition politics but it betrays the revolution if it builds an alliance with mainstream parties. The left is ridiculed if it fails to gather a big crowd during rallies; but it is also criticized (by armchair activists) if it succeeds in mobilizing its members and supporters in the streets.

A ‘bad leftist’ is a dead leftist. Bad leftists are harassed, abducted, tortured and killed in this part of the world. They are demonized as destabilizers and terrorists. They are not recognized as legitimate political players who can use valid political practices in the electoral arena. Hence, they are mocked if they build coalitions or endorse the candidacies of mainstream politicians.

If the left can do no right and if it cannot be allowed to succeed in parliamentary politics, its only option (and the only correct decision it can accomplish) is to surrender its political goals. Be irrelevant. Disappear. Build an NGO. This is the fantasy not just of the fascist state; but also the wet dream of liberal “fundamentalist freaks.”

********************************

Satur Ocampo and Liza Maza are often described in the media as leftist politicians. This is not wrong. But the practice of naming people and animals for who or what they really are is not applied to centrists and rightists. May kilala ba kayong pulitikong nagpakilala o ipinakilala bilang maka-kanan? Villar is a businessman-politician. Noynoy is the politician son of Cory and the brother of Kris. Gibo is the politician nephew of Danding who studied in Harvard. It is easy to add the leftist tag to Ocampo and Maza but writers often omit to mention the proper political background of Villar, Noynoy and Gibo. Imagine the impact of this seemingly objective writing on how the public perceives progressive leaders like Ocampo and bourgeois politicians like Noynoy. Ocampo’s politics is immediately placed under debate because he is already identified as a leftist while Noynoy’s political leaning is overlooked because his family ties are given more attention. Ocampo’s motive as a public servant is already suspect because of his ideology while Noynoy is introduced as a sincere (and reluctant) politician who is not motivated by any ideology. Rejecting ideology, denying ideology are ideological acts.

*******************************

Gibo speaks in behalf of Arroyo; Noynoy speaks in behalf of his family; Villar speaks in behalf of his party. We do not see each one of them as representing the whole political right and center. Meanwhile, the left is treated as a monolithic political bloc. The actions of one section of the left are attributed to all leftists in the country. Ocampo and Maza are leaders of popular partylist groups Bayan Muna and Gabriela. But academics and commentators want Ocampo and Maza to speak in behalf of ALL leftists – whether they are striking workers, arrested rallyists, student protesters, evicted farmers, exiled communists, and armed rebels.

A leftist is guilty of being a leftist. A leftist is held responsible for the sins committed by dead and living leftists. The weakness of one leftist is blamed on all leftists.

Meanwhile, we do not hear mainstream commentators and academics asking mainstream politicians to pay for the sins of the ruling class. There are no class dictatorships; only evil dictators, selfish leaders, and warlord dynasties. The sins of Quezon are blamed on Quezon alone. The sins of Marcos are the burden of the Marcoses alone. Arroyo’s transgressions are hers alone. We do not speak of the political center and right when discussing these abominations. The forces of domestic reaction have not yet apologized for plunging the country into darkness in the past century.

The liberal right-wingers are always reminding the public about the alleged excesses and blunders of the left. They are obviously suffering from pathological narcissism. They refuse to remember and recognize the bloody record of their reactionary ancestors and conservative gurus.

FYI: Yes, the extreme left has already apologized for its past mistakes.

********************************

Many writers have commented about the historic significance of the militant left’s endorsement for Villar. Let’s view it the other way around. A mainstream politician like Villar is willing to be openly endorsed by the left. A major candidate is not afraid to be identified with individuals who are accused by the military of supporting the rebel movement. A bourgeois party has two militant and anti-imperialist leftists in its senatorial ticket as adopted candidates.

According to a veteran activist, the left was ready to endorse Salonga in 1992 but the grand old man of Philippine politics requested the left not to publicize its endorsement. Was Salonga afraid that an endorsement from the left would alienate his voters? Maybe he was not impressed with the organized strength of the left.

Fast forward to 2009. Villar and other presidentiables have many good reasons to seek the support of the left. The electoral victories of the left in 2001, 2004 and 2007 signified many things: The left has a loyal following among the electorate; its progressive agenda is appreciated and supported by a core constituency; the red-baiting tactic of the state has lost its efficacy. An astute politician cannot afford to ignore the solid base of the left.

Villar’s brave decision to openly embrace a platform-based unity with the left has smashed the taboo in Philippine politics. From now on, the participation of the left will be expected in future electoral contests for top political posts.

But why Villar? Why not Noynoy?

The analysis of the left about the character of the Philippine political party system has not changed. The left continues to assert that politics in the country is dominated by the traditional elite. Villar and Noynoy are both members of the ruling class. If the left will endorse one of them, it should be based on the willingness of the candidate to promote a reform agenda. It was Villar who took the time to draft a document in response to the challenge of leftist groups to advance a people’s agenda in 2010. It was Villar who invited Ocampo and Maza to join his senatorial lineup as adopted candidates. Noynoy was never interested in seeking the support of the left. Maybe he wanted the left to endorse him quietly, a la Salonga in 1992. Noynoy and the mafia in the Liberal Party do not recognize and respect the political strength of the left.

************************************

Ambitious apostates (John Pilger’s term for ex-activists) are protesting the decision of Ocampo and Maza to endorse the Villar-Legarda tandem. They criticized this act as a betrayal of revolutionary principles. They did not notice the irony in their remarks. The people who turned their backs on the movement and those who had tirelessly attacked the left are now concerned about the revolution.

Let us assume they are sincere in upholding the purity of the leftist movement. What revolutionary principles were violated by Ocampo and Maza? What revolutionary goal was abandoned?

The anti-left gang is mad not because the left endorsed a presidential candidate. They are mad because the left has refused to endorse Noynoy Aquino.

**************************************

The left is ridiculed for behaving like a religious cult. It’s not a new accusation. It’s often raised by writers and academics every time they want to attack the politics of the left. The intention is to mock the ‘fanatical attitude’ of leftists. But this reasoning has lost the power to insult. Here is a relevant quote from Slavoj Zizek: “Instead of adopting such a defensive stance, allowing the enemy to define the terrain of the struggle, what one should do is to reverse the strategy by fully endorsing what one is accused of: yes, there is a direct lineage from Christianity to Marxism; yes, Christianity and Marxism should fight on the same side of the barricade against the onslaught of new spritualisms – the authentic Christian legacy is much too precious to be left to the fundamentalist freaks.”

*****************************************

According to French philosopher Alain Badiou, many liberal thinkers have this attitude towards the left: “As a public spectacle the Revolution is admirable, while its militants are contemptible.” There are many writers and intellectuals in the Philippines who are sympathetic to leftist causes but unkind and unfair to leftist militants. There are academics who are masters of subtlety and sarcasm when attacking trapos but blunt, brutal, and rude to leftist leaders. To borrow some words from the great economist Joseph Schumpeter, these anti-leftists “lack any organ for the perception of absurdity.”

Related articles:

Left: 1986 and 2001
Militants and leftists
Total war vs the left

In the past, the government encouraged the development of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Today, the government is providing assistance to Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). It is not enough that we have a small-dominated economy. We have to be smaller than small and so we used a more appropriate category: micro. What is the difference between small and micro businesses? Micro firms have an asset size of less than P3 million. Meanwhile, small firms are worth P3 million to P15 million. Micro companies have less than 10 employees while small companies employ 10-99 workers.

According to the Department of Trade and Industry, there are almost 800,000 registered business enterprises in the Philippines. More than 90 percent of these establishments are micro enterprises. This means there are more than 700,000 businesses in the country which contribute micro taxes and micro investments to the economy. It means 700,000 micro entrepreneurs with micro business plans and micro innovation proposals.

The President vows to make the Philippines a First World society in 2020. It is impossible to achieve this lofty goal if we are to remain stuck with a micro-dominated economy. What this country needs are large enterprises: Filipino-owned large enterprises with mega number of employees, mega assets, mega investments, and mega business plans. Imagine if the 700,000 micro enterprises are transformed into large or even medium enterprises. It would jumpstart the economy. Leapfrogging to prosperity, as envisioned by some scholars, can become a reality.

But these are micro times. To display micro-ness is ideal and idealized. We praise and practice micro culture and micro mentality everyday. Micro is in. Micro is cool. We don’t read novels anymore; we read tula-text translations in the LRT. We don’t write in longhand and shorthand anymore; we text. We don’t blog anymore; we microblog via twitter and plurk. We don’t keep a real diary to record our daily activities; we change our facebook statuses. We become farmers by playing Farmville.

We are enamored with the micro. We feel empowered by being microsexual and ubermicro. We are satisfied with the familiar and predictable micro aspects of our lives. We shun the large and mega because we are afraid of them. They are too big for us. We think we only deserve the micro. We believe only micro solutions will work for us. Besides, micro proposals are concrete, visible, doable. The results are instant. While large and mega ideas are vague, unrealizable, unattainable. The results are not immediate. Adopting a large framework demands sacrifice, patience, dedication. Large activities require cooperation with other individuals, strangers, and communities.

This is most evident in politics. Micro political attitude is dominant today. Large or big or mega politics is rejected. Small politics is encouraged; micro politics is practiced. In the past, activists want to change the world. Today there are activists who assert that to mitigate the impact of climate change, the people must change their lightbulbs. From change the world to change the lightbulbs. Large politics to small politics. During my college years, small politics was hailed as the new activism. Students were told to contemplate the beautiful in life; to cultivate inner peace; and to close the faucet in order to conserve water.

People Power is large politics; community activism is medium politics; volunteering in relief centers is small politics; attaching green or yellow twibbons on our Twitter profiles is micro politics. Revolution is large politics; participating in elections is medium politics; buying green bags is small politics; signing online petitions is micro politics.

The emergence of modern tools of communication has allowed individuals to practice and worship micro politics. Large politics was abandoned as more and more individuals prefer to express activism by texting or surfing the internet.

Virtual or micro activism is not wrong just as having micro enterprises is not bad for the economy. But if more than 90 percent of businesses in the country are micro-owned, how can this economy provide a higher quality of living for Filipinos? If all of us will practice small and micro politics, would we expect a fundamental change in society? At best, we can have micro and small reforms in governance. I dread the day when people would prefer micro and small changes in their lives. We should dream big, we should act big.

The country has mega problems; the solution should be mega politics, not medium reforms like building houses for the poor. Total, holistic, comprehensive political analysis; not micro thinking which usually puts the blame on individuals and incidents and not on institutions, processes, and complex political-economic systems.

There are mega evils in society that require mega actions. Large politics versus large political problems. Politicians are not afraid of small and micro politics. They themselves are advocating small politics: Obey the law, respect authorities, change yourself first before others, study now and be an activist later in your senior citizen years.

Large politics is criticized because it is excessively radical, violent, and uncontrollable. But politics is essentially and inevitably violent since it involves a struggle between competing power factions. Besides, large politics is always against a certain strong force which does not easily and peacefully surrender its influence.

The most active opponents of large politics are political forces which only desire superficial changes in society. They prefer micro politics since it does not threaten their hegemony. It’s time to criticize the naïve and conservative character of micro and small politics. It’s time to blame this kind of politics for reinforcing a dangerous kind of “artificial individualism” in society and for deceiving the public that only micro political actions are required to reengineer an unjust social order.

The concept and practice of what constitute mainstream large politics are defined by traditional politicians, political dynasties, corporate media bosses, church leaders, local and foreign big businesses, landlords, and warlords. We should challenge this. Why should we allow them to dictate what kind of large politics is suitable for the country? Why shouldn’t we use our version of large politics to build a stronger and vibrant nation; a new society where freedom, democracy, and progress reign; where the class interest of the majority prevails over the interest of the minority?

Related articles:

Displacement: Poor versus poor
Nick Joaquin’s Manila, my Manila

Why should the poor return to the provinces? Because they are viewed as eyesores, their presence is unwanted, and they multiply fast like rats (and rats spread diseases like leptospirosis). Their parasitic existence in Metro Manila is believed to be the cause of numerous urban problems like pollution, overpopulation, unemployment, rising criminality, and environmental degradation. They prevent progress since they discourage foreign investors from setting up various businesses in the city.

The poor are guilty of being poor. They are guilty of constructing houses along rail tracks floodways, and riverbeds. If they die during calamities, it is their stubborn attitude which should be blamed. To save the poor from their own stupidity, the benevolent government is offering them a chance to rebuild their miserable lives in the provinces.

Balik Probinsiya is the latest anti-poverty measure of the government. Bureaucrats and technocrats want fast results so they have less patience for programs that require massive public funding for social and economic services. They want to get rid of the problem quickly. They want the poor out of their sight.

Beautification programs can immediately hide the ugly houses of the poor. Relocation is also an option. A less costly alternative is to pay the one way bus tickets of the poor. Remove the poor in Metro Manila so that the government can boast that its poverty eradication programs are working. Move them out where tourists and credit rating analysts can’t see them.

Balik Probinsiya affirms the existence of two kinds of Filipinos in the country today: Those who deserve to remain in Metro Manila and those who must be ejected from the megacity. Filipinos who are permitted to stay in the city and Filipinos who are disallowed from leaving the provinces. Filipinos who can survive during calamities without government aid and Filipinos who accept relief goods. Filipinos who can stay in evacuation centers because they are voters and Filipinos who must be prevented from returning to their shanty homes because they don’t have political value. There are citizens who enjoy the full protection of the state; and there are incomplete citizens who are erased from the political radar screen.

Balik Probinsiya is a condescending program. It claims to help the poor by providing an opportunity for the latter to return to their home provinces. It does the thinking for the poor by assuming that the poor want to return to the provinces. It insists that the best and only option of the poor is to leave Metro Manila. The government believes that the poor who have low intake of iodized salt will not be able to make the most informed decision about their own welfare. Therefore, the government has to intervene. Oddly, funding the bus fares of the poor addresses the people’s right to travel. A one way, one time, never come back right to travel.

Balik Probinsiya is an ill-conceived, superficial treatment of the pestering wounds that afflict the city. The government wants to save the poor who live in dangerous, disaster-prone areas. But the solution is not simply to evacuate mindless and unlucky residents living near esteros and dead lakes. Where is the comprehensive disaster-preparedness program? Where is the modern land use code? Where is the blueprint for sustainable development? Besides, Balik Probinsiya missed an essential point which Typhoon Pepeng illuminated for us. That even in the provinces, disasters occur. Flooding and mudslides also destroy lives and properties in the provinces. Balik Probinsiya will not save the poor from being victims of environmental disasters. Balik Probinsiya is a convenient and lame excuse of the government which wants to abandon its duty of providing assistance to its citizens.

Balik Probinsiya is proof and admission that we have an impotent state. Finally, the government concedes that it is unable to protect and provide services to urban residents. That the ruling class is almost powerless to govern effectively in the urban areas. That the only clever solution it can concoct is to literally and physically remove the poor from their areas of responsibility. The government has a myopic view that reducing the number of visible poor in Metro Manila can partly hide the true state of poverty in the metro.

In the past, Christian Manilans were persuaded by the national government to migrate to Mindanao to challenge the dominance of Muslims. Today, the poor are persuaded (and even forced) by public authorities to depopulate Metro Manila in order to modernize the country’s economy. Then and now, moving people from the urban to rural serves the political interest of the ruling class.

Balik Probinsiya highlights the extent of urban decay. It confirms that Metro Manila is no longer the ideal place where dreams become a reality. The reality has become a nightmare for many Filipinos who once harbored dreams of making it big in the big city. Balik Probinsiya stands for the many shattered Filipino dreams; the symbol of Imperial Manila’s utter failure to accommodate the hungry and landless poor from the provinces.

Balik Probinsiya underscores the fact that Metro Manila is inhabited by local migrants. Balik Probinsiya is therefore meant for unsuccessful migrants. It hopes to reverse the migration trend by providing an escape route for probinsiyanos trapped in Metro Manila. It mirrors the immigration policies of rich nations which are now encouraging illegal migrants to return to their home countries. To quell rising discontent, rich nations are laying-off foreign migrant workers so that there will be enough jobs for the domestic population. Balik Probinsiya is the local version of this policy. Only deserving citizens, not the uneducated and unclean poor, should enjoy economic and political privileges in the city.

Migrants are welcome to live and work in Manila and in the global cities of the West as long as they do not threaten the political-economic survival of the dominant leadership of the state. But if the migrant population explodes too fast, and if their numbers make it difficult for the state to govern effectively, they will be subjected to harsh regulatory policies.

Balik Probinsiya emphasizes the need for a comprehensive development in the country so that Filipinos need not migrate to Imperial Manila to seek better opportunities in life.

Perhaps the most disagreeable aspect of Balik Probinsiya is its simplistic analysis of the rural. To convince Filipinos to return to the provinces, the government paints a romanticized image of the province: Life is better in the provinces. Food is abundant, clean drinking water is plenty, there is no traffic. (A politician once told me that the people in the provinces are not poor. They eat good food, drink clean water, and breathe fresh air. They only need clothes.)

The government deliberately forgot to mention that rural folks migrated to Metro Manila because they dreamed and wanted a better future for their families. They couldn’t find enough opportunities in the provinces that would enable them to improve their lives. Manny Pacquiao left General Santos to find a job in Manila. There are hundreds of thousands of Manny Pacquaios in Metro Manila but since they are not boxing champions, they are now told to immediately leave the city.

We have a rural paradise beset with third world problems like landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, and militarization. Peasants can’t eat what they sowed and planted. Farmers can’t afford to buy adequate food and water supplies for their families. Vast amounts of land are owned by exploitative landowners and absentee foreign landlords. If the rural people decide to manifest and display dissidence, their communities will be militarized. Is this the idyllic countryside the government is talking about?

Balik Probinsiya is a right-wing initiative. The left should claim it and rebrand it with a radical content. During martial law, Kabataang Makabayan members went back to the provinces to establish opposition groups and activist chapters. Recognizing that the left’s solid political strength is still to be found in the countryside, Balik Probinsiya will give the left additional potential recruits for their political campaigns. The left should welcome Balik Probinsiya beneficiaries by providing them with a proper political education. The returning migrants from Manila should be politicized. They should be taught how to fight the oppressive state with dignity. By recruiting them in the struggle for a more egalitarian society, they will be able to regain their humanity.

Balik Probinsiya? Balik Kanayunan!

Related articles:

Urban facelift
MMDA and poverty
Poverty and Amartya Sen
Imperial Manila

In the Philippine context the North-South divide refers to the lopsided set-up between Imperial Manila and the rest of the country. Urban Mega Manila is North while the rural areas of the Philippines belong to the South. Mindanao is the famous image of the South. The 20th century witnessed the exceptional struggle of the rural South to dislodge the Imperial North.

Imperial Manila is expanding today. It is now Mega Manila. Soon, it will be Metro Luzon. The western corridor of Luzon is included in the Metro Luzon Urban Beltway of the Super Regions program of President Gloria Arroyo. The political-geographical landscape is changing.

As urbanization spreads outside Metro Manila, the West-East divide will soon become apparent. The West refers to the coastal cities of Luzon facing the South China Sea. It also includes the emerging urban areas and tourist zones in South Luzon, West (Iloilo) and Central Visayas (Cebu). The West is the country’s premier trading outpost which targets the dollar investments from Japan, China, and other East Asian giants. The West is an economic hub represented by Metro Manila, Metro Cavite, Metro Laguna, Metro Bulacan, Subic, Clark, Mariveles, and Poro Point. The country’s major international airports, seaports, and modern railways are located in the West.

The East refers to the rural provinces facing the Pacific Ocean. It includes Cagayan Valley, Cordilleras, the provinces located on the eastern side of Sierra Madre, Bicol region, Eastern Visayas and Mindanao. The country’s poorest provinces are located in the East. It is no accident that armed rebels seem to be proliferating in the East. All empirical studies show that rebellion is strong in areas where there is rampant poverty.

The East is condemned because it is too poor. It is too remote and detached from Manila. It is too rebellious. Therefore it deserves to be oppressed. It has to be colonized by brute force. But the East is also feared. Its very backwardness can cause the defeat of the dominant political class. Its unbelievable defiance can inspire the poor to rise and punish the oppressors.

The State is prepared to defend the North from the attacking forces of the South. It can effectively prevent dissidents from invading the North by controlling the major transport routes north and south of Mega Manila. But is the State ready to defeat the rebels if they come from the East? The literal east. From the Sierra Madres. From the Rizal highlands. From the eastern corridor of Metro Manila. What if an enemy force will attack the archipelago from the Pacific Ocean?

Scenario: The revolutionary forces can manage to overwhelm the modern machinery of the armed State by deploying their forces in all directions around Mega Manila: north, south, west, east. Build the army in the countryside. Attack from the mountains. Maximize the seas and lakes. Invade the north from the south (though the nautical highways, expressways, railways). Invade the west from the east. A political force which has the creative will and imagination to unite the East – South can claim political victory in the future.

To travel outside Manila is to go north or south. People don’t go to the west (water transport system is not efficient) or east. Few Manilans know that Metro Manila has an eastern corridor. The recent flooding tragedy damaged several eastern cities of Metro Manila. It is through this eastern side of Imperial Manila where the weakest link of the State is located. The political and economic infrastructures of the ruling class are not well-developed here. If the rebels and other historymakers gain momentum in the future, they will enter Manila through this passage.

Related articles:

Railway politics
Loob-labas
Bundok, dagat, pulitika
20th century: Imperialism and Revolution