NSA Gonzales bats anew for Monsod-style poll automation to avoid national disaster
NATIONAL Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales yesterday urged anew the Commission on Elections to seriously consider the “open election system,” the poll automation scheme proposed by former election chief Christian Monsod, in the face of the possibility that the country will have to go back to manual elections in 2010.
“Reverting to manual elections next year is now a distinct possibility that we cannot allow to happen. It would be disastrous for the country to have a 2010 presidential election with questionable credibility,” Gonzales said.
The specter of manual balloting in the forthcoming national and local elections surfaced after the Comelec announced it has disqualified all seven bidders for the poll computerization contract.
Gonzales said the sorry status of the bidding process for the country's poll automation contract only shows the great risks involved in the giant leap from manual voting to full automation that the Comelec wants the country to make.
The national security chief noted that many of the country’s poll computerization experts are greatly concerned about the Comelec’s ability to implement fully automated elections in 2010 given its lack of experience and its present deficiencies in information technology.
Gonzales said that instead of courting national disaster by sticking to an ambitious plan that may not work, the Comelec should take a second look at OES, an alternative scheme that is simpler, much easier to implement but much more transparent, more fraud-proof and just as speedy.
“We are running out of time for the preparation for full automation, but we still have adequate time for OES,” Gonzales added.
OES retains manual voting and precinct-level counting but automates the canvass process. It is designed to keep the transparency of manual voting and precinct-level counting but at the same time address dagdag-bawas which occurs at the canvassing for national elections.
Gonzales noted that this scheme, half-way between manual and fully automated elections, is more fit to the present readiness not only of the Comelec but more so of the country's electorate, particularly the elders most of whom have not touched a computer.
The system is being pushed by a group of electoral reform advocates and computer experts led by former Comelec chair Christian Monsod and it is being backed by the national security chief and at least 38 Catholic bishops.
The group of Monsod points out that the full automation system that the Comelec chose to adopt makes voting, counting and canvassing internal and instantaneous thus removing the transparency of manual voting and counting. The group reminds that most voters would trust a system more where they can actually see the counting of ballots.
The proponents of OES have also been pointing out that government can save at least P7 billion from the P11.3 billion approved supplemental budget for full automation of 2010 elections if Comelec opts to adopt OES instead. – (30)
Saturday, May 9, 2009
On OES
NSA Gonzales bats anew for Monsod-style poll automation to avoid national disaster
NATIONAL Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales yesterday urged anew the Commission on Elections to seriously consider the “open election system,” the poll automation scheme proposed by former election chief Christian Monsod, in the face of the possibility that the country will have to go back to manual elections in 2010.
“Reverting to manual elections next year is now a distinct possibility that we cannot allow to happen. It would be disastrous for the country to have a 2010 presidential election with questionable credibility,” Gonzales said.
The specter of manual balloting in the forthcoming national and local elections surfaced after the Comelec announced it has disqualified all seven bidders for the poll computerization contract.
Gonzales said the sorry status of the bidding process for the country's poll automation contract only shows the great risks involved in the giant leap from manual voting to full automation that the Comelec wants the country to make.
The national security chief noted that many of the country’s poll computerization experts are greatly concerned about the Comelec’s ability to implement fully automated elections in 2010 given its lack of experience and its present deficiencies in information technology.
Gonzales said that instead of courting national disaster by sticking to an ambitious plan that may not work, the Comelec should take a second look at OES, an alternative scheme that is simpler, much easier to implement but much more transparent, more fraud-proof and just as speedy.
“We are running out of time for the preparation for full automation, but we still have adequate time for OES,” Gonzales added.
OES retains manual voting and precinct-level counting but automates the canvass process. It is designed to keep the transparency of manual voting and precinct-level counting but at the same time address dagdag-bawas which occurs at the canvassing for national elections.
Gonzales noted that this scheme, half-way between manual and fully automated elections, is more fit to the present readiness not only of the Comelec but more so of the country's electorate, particularly the elders most of whom have not touched a computer.
The system is being pushed by a group of electoral reform advocates and computer experts led by former Comelec chair Christian Monsod and it is being backed by the national security chief and at least 38 Catholic bishops.
The group of Monsod points out that the full automation system that the Comelec chose to adopt makes voting, counting and canvassing internal and instantaneous thus removing the transparency of manual voting and counting. The group reminds that most voters would trust a system more where they can actually see the counting of ballots.
The proponents of OES have also been pointing out that government can save at least P7 billion from the P11.3 billion approved supplemental budget for full automation of 2010 elections if Comelec opts to adopt OES instead. – (30)
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
PDSP, Past and Present
The Party’s History
The period of the late sixties was marked by a great slide into anarchy. After a long history of subjugation by various colonial forces and their cohorts, the nation was starting to exhibit cracks in its very foundation as a result of centuries of social unrest. Several decades since political independence have proved very disappointing to the overwhelming majority of Filipinos. Pillaging of public funds and equipment for private gains became more and more flagrant, complaints and legal remedies less and less availing. These terrible trends damaged the national consensus, formerly so overwhelming in favor of democratic and nonviolent means of societal change. The temptation towards authoritarian or totalitarian societal models became evident with the resurgence both of fascist attitudes and of Communism, particularly in its Maoist form.
It was in this social backdrop that a group of young leaders from such people oriented organizations as the Hasik Kalayaan (Sowers of Freedom), the Kilusan ng mga Anak-Kalayaan (Movement of the Children of Freedom) and the Christian Social Movement, formally organized themselves into the Katipunan ng mga Demokratiko-Sosyalistang Pilipino (KDSP or Union of Filipino Democratic Socialists) on July 7, 1972 – the 80th anniversary of the founding of the Katipunan.
At a time when the country was successfully polarized by the extremist forces of the left and right, this fledgling organization opted for a clear democratic socialist position and shunned armed struggle as a means for societal change. Two months after its birth, the nation’s worst nightmare was about to begin with the declaration of Martial Law.
In order to streamline and strengthen the democratic socialist forces of the country in preparation for an all out struggle against the US-Marcos Dictatorship, the KDSP began to adopt the structure and policies of a cadre-based political party. Thus, on the first of May, 1973, the Partido Demokratiko-Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (PDSP) was born under clandestine conditions. The PDSP, at its very inception, described itself as Filipino nationalist, democratic, socialist and revolutionary. Cognizant of the fascist character of the regime, the PDSP opted for a policy of military resistance using all forms of struggle—legal, extra-legal and armed.
The Party grew rapidly as fascist repression heightened. On March 1975, another accession of strength occurred with the merging of the Lakas Diwang Kayumanggi (LakasDiwa) with the Party. As a result, the Party was renamed Nagkakaisang Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (NPDSP) in recognition of the ongoing process of integration of the two organizations.
TOWARDS THE ARMED OPTION
Although the Party upholds the primacy of democratic means over violence, the onslaught of the fascist Marcos regime had given them no choice but to form an armed support when the situation would come to worse. In the year 1976, the Party organized local militia units and formed them into the Sandigan ng Pambansang Pagpapalaya ng Pilipinas (Philippine National Liberation Army).
The Sandigan as it came to be known, was to support the legal and extra-legal work of the Party in the rural areas. It was basically a self-defense armed force specializing in guerilla operations. The Sandigan maintained a low-profile so as not to generate too much attention and can continue its expansion in the different parts of the country.
THE AGONIES OF VICTORY
While mustering its armed capability, the Party had also intensified its extra-legal struggle against the dictatorship. It helped organized the People’s Convention on Human Rights on August 1977, and helped form a multi-sectoral opposition group called Katipunan ng Bayan para sa Kalayaan (KABAKA) which was headed by Sen. Jovito Salonga as Chairman and Sen. Francisco “Soc” Rodrigo as Vice-Chairman.
But the first big test of the Party’s strength in Metro Manila came during the 1978 Interim National Assembly Elections in which the Party had successfully wrested the control of the machinery of the semi-legal opposition groups Lakas ng Bayan (Strength of the People) from the national democrats.
It had also engineered the highly successful noise barrage on the eve of the elections. During the election day, the Party was able to mobilize 8,000 poll watchers.
This show of force, however, proved to be inimical, as the Party plunged into its first major crisis. The Marcos military subjected thousands of Party followers and cadres who acted as poll watchers to physical injuries and arbitrary detention. A vicious crackdown resulted in the arrest of some 500 Party members and sympathizers while holding a peaceful prayer rally in protest of the massive fraud and terrorism perpetrated by the Marcos regime. Several more Party cadres were captured in subsequent raids. One of the Party’s candidate members, Comrade Teotimo Tantiado, a farmer from Camarines Sur, died from torture wounds.
The volatile situation was further complicated by a split in the Party engineered by some relatively new and ambitious members in the second echelon leadership. This led to the division of the Party into two factions, which in turn, forced the Chairman to resign.
A majority of the cadres refused, however, to recognize the authority of the insurgent faction. Immediately thereafter these Party members organized the National Coordinating Council which was tasked to build and rectify the errors committed.
Despite the many setbacks experienced by the Party, some developments would prove positive for its immediate recovery. Party cadres intensified their organizing work and new people-based organizations under the Party’s influence were formed. The most prominent of these was the Sandigan ng Malayang Kabataan (Union of Free Youth).
While in the process of recovery, the Party would again experience some blows with the military-instigated murders of Comrade Simplicio Pesquiza who organized his fellow workers in Silang, Cavite, and Comrade Elmo Cagape, another Party organizer from Digos, Davao del Sur.
THE AUGUST BOMBINGS AND THE PARTY’S REJECTION OF URBAN TERRORISM
The months of May to October 1980 saw an effort by some elements of democratic opposition, both in the Philippines and abroad, to destabilize the U.S. imperialist-backed Marcos regime and to force the dictator to surrender power through negotiations. An invitation was extended to the NPDSP to adopt this strategy. The party refused to take part because of its belief that no revolutionary strategy will ever succeed without the support of the broad rural masses in the countryside.
However, some unscrupulous organizers projected the Party and Sandigan as the principal elements in the destabilization campaign. Thus, when some 50 bombs exploded in Manila from August to October, the Marcos henchmen were again behind the trails of the Party, pushing it deeper into the underground and seriously stifling its organizing efforts.
Undaunted by such adverse developments, the party continued to consolidate and expand its mass base. On December 1980, the NPDSP dropped the modifier “Nagkakaisang” to demonstrate that the merger process between the LakasDiwa and the PDSP has been completed and as a result the Party readopted its original name when it was founded-the PDSP.
THE MNLF CONNECTION
On March 18, 1981, the Party formally recognized the national identity of the Bangsa Moro people. This resulted in the strengthening of the relations between the Party and the MNLF on one hand, and the Sandigan and the Bangsa Moro Army on the other.
The recognition of the Bangsa Moro people’s identity extended by the Party was aimed at promptly recovering the political unity of the people of the Philippine archipelago and uniting the revolutionary democratic forces against the US-Marcos dictatorship.
THE RECTIFICATION OF ERRORS
Complementing the successful MNLF-PDSP cooperation was the healing of the wounds caused by the 1978 crisis. The first sign that the internal crisis was over was the dissolution of the national Coordinating Council and the election of the Central Committee members held sometime in may 1980. The next year, after consulting the Party cadres nationwide, the Central Committee started the process of rectifying the errors of the past.
This led to the radical amendments in the Party’s organizational structures and policies in order to unify the authority and responsibility in the Party. The Party’s political line was also refined to include such policies as commitment to all forms of struggle (legal, extra-legal, armed struggles), advocacy of authentic politics based on issues, separation from the two extremist forces, consolidation of a democratic socialist coalition, active non-alignment toward a just international order, the promotion of a voluntary politico-economic federation of nations.
It was also at this time that the Party resolved to adopt a two-pronged tactical plan in its battle against the dictatorship. One plan involved the participation of the PDSP and its allies in the armed struggle in the form of people’s war; the other plan involved the consolidation, expansion and intensification of the legal and extra-legal framework of the PDSP and its allies in the hope of toppling the dictatorship through non-violent means.
THE AQUINO ASSASSINATION: EDSA AND ITS CHALLENGES
The advent of the eighties saw the loosening of Marcos’ grips on the country. Despite his efforts to disguise stability by nominally lifting Martial Law, Marcos’ iron fist had already shown signs of weakness. The country’s economy was going from bad to worse; government officials became ungovernable; even the military had already shown signs of displeasure towards the dictator.
Seeing opportunities in these ominous signs, the party intensified its extra-legal work through fraternal organizations. Rallies, symposia, and other forms of protest were mounted. Then the unexpected happened. Ninoy Aquino, the number one oppositionist of Marcos, was assassinated at the Manila as well as in some key cities around the country.
In another desperate bid to assert his authority, Marcos called for a snap presidential election. When Cory Aquino agreed to run, the Party mobilized all its resources behind the widow-in-yellow. Such move was also a desperate one on the part of the Party to oust Marcos through non-violent means.
When Marcos succeeded in manipulating the COMELEC and the Batasang Pambansa into proclaiming him as winner, the Party started focusing its strategy on the armed struggle. But the EDSA uprising came. Although most Party leaders already seemed wary about non-violent struggle, they nevertheless rode on to the idea and mobilized all its mass bases, even those from as far as Batangas and Pampanga to form a significant part of what is now known as people power.
Two years have passed after the events at EDSA. Although Cory Aquino has yet to initiate a significant change in the system, the PDSP has no regrets participating in the uprising. On the contrary the party makes a firm resolve to protect the gains of the EDSA experiences and make the most out of the present situation.
This can be attested by the resolution of the Party’s last Reconstitutive Congress to come out into open and join the electoral exercises in the future. The PDSP is already confident of its strength. It is already ready to face the challenges from any fronts, and most willing to submit its ideals and programs to the citizens of the Philippines.
DURING THE RESTORATION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
On April 1986: Madrid exiles return to the homeland, December 1987: Congress of Reorganization, at Sacred Heart Novitiate, Quezon City; Chair: Norberto Gonzales; General Secretary: Marianito Canonigo.
During the Aquino administration the PDSP helps in the organization and mobilization of democratic sectoral and multisectoral groups, in order to consolidate democracy, help in the delivery of social services, and combat attempts of the extreme left and the extreme right to seize state power.
10 December 1990, Human Rights Day: New People’s Army assassins kill Negros sugar worker leaders Comrade Ernesto Gonzales and party ally Edilberto Federico, after they barged in at a meeting of the Lakas Manggagawa Labor Center (LMLC) at the Institute of Social Order (ISO), Social Development Complex, Ateneo de Manila University
March 1990: PDSP attains recognition by the Commission on Elections as a national political party.
1991: Second Congress of the PDSP, at Institute of Social Order, Santa Ana, Manila; Chair: Norberto Gonzales; General Secretary: Rolando Librojo
1995: PDSP becomes a consultative member of the Socialist Internationale.1995: Third Congress of the PDSP, at Auditorium of the Social Development Complex at the Loyola Heights Campus of the Ateneo de Manila University; a faction splits away to eventually form the Social Democratic Caucus; Norberto Gonzales re-elected Chair, Efren Villaseñor elected General Secretary
RECENT DEVELOPMENTSAugust 2000 to January 2001: PDSP plays major role in the impeachment of former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, and in the accession to power of President Gloria Macapagal - Arroyo
PDSP enters the administration coalition, with party Chair Norberto Gonzales becoming Presidential Adviser for Special Concerns in 2001, and becoming National Security Adviser in 2005
27-29 December 2003: Special Congress of the PDSP, at Bay View Hotel, Manila ; Norberto Gonzales re-elected Chair, Elizabeth Angsioco elected Vice-Chair, Timoteo Aranjuez elected General Secretary
2001, 2004, 2007 elections: gradual increase in electoral successes; in local government units and in the House of Representatives
Implementation of Party Response to the Revolutionary Situation (2005) improves party systems, leads to recruitment of talented and trained persons, makes it more effective, better able to project its position; consolidation ongoing
January 2007: Atty. Ramel Muria becomes Acting General Secretary
The period of the late sixties was marked by a great slide into anarchy. After a long history of subjugation by various colonial forces and their cohorts, the nation was starting to exhibit cracks in its very foundation as a result of centuries of social unrest. Several decades since political independence have proved very disappointing to the overwhelming majority of Filipinos. Pillaging of public funds and equipment for private gains became more and more flagrant, complaints and legal remedies less and less availing. These terrible trends damaged the national consensus, formerly so overwhelming in favor of democratic and nonviolent means of societal change. The temptation towards authoritarian or totalitarian societal models became evident with the resurgence both of fascist attitudes and of Communism, particularly in its Maoist form.
It was in this social backdrop that a group of young leaders from such people oriented organizations as the Hasik Kalayaan (Sowers of Freedom), the Kilusan ng mga Anak-Kalayaan (Movement of the Children of Freedom) and the Christian Social Movement, formally organized themselves into the Katipunan ng mga Demokratiko-Sosyalistang Pilipino (KDSP or Union of Filipino Democratic Socialists) on July 7, 1972 – the 80th anniversary of the founding of the Katipunan.
At a time when the country was successfully polarized by the extremist forces of the left and right, this fledgling organization opted for a clear democratic socialist position and shunned armed struggle as a means for societal change. Two months after its birth, the nation’s worst nightmare was about to begin with the declaration of Martial Law.
In order to streamline and strengthen the democratic socialist forces of the country in preparation for an all out struggle against the US-Marcos Dictatorship, the KDSP began to adopt the structure and policies of a cadre-based political party. Thus, on the first of May, 1973, the Partido Demokratiko-Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (PDSP) was born under clandestine conditions. The PDSP, at its very inception, described itself as Filipino nationalist, democratic, socialist and revolutionary. Cognizant of the fascist character of the regime, the PDSP opted for a policy of military resistance using all forms of struggle—legal, extra-legal and armed.
The Party grew rapidly as fascist repression heightened. On March 1975, another accession of strength occurred with the merging of the Lakas Diwang Kayumanggi (LakasDiwa) with the Party. As a result, the Party was renamed Nagkakaisang Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (NPDSP) in recognition of the ongoing process of integration of the two organizations.
TOWARDS THE ARMED OPTION
Although the Party upholds the primacy of democratic means over violence, the onslaught of the fascist Marcos regime had given them no choice but to form an armed support when the situation would come to worse. In the year 1976, the Party organized local militia units and formed them into the Sandigan ng Pambansang Pagpapalaya ng Pilipinas (Philippine National Liberation Army).
The Sandigan as it came to be known, was to support the legal and extra-legal work of the Party in the rural areas. It was basically a self-defense armed force specializing in guerilla operations. The Sandigan maintained a low-profile so as not to generate too much attention and can continue its expansion in the different parts of the country.
THE AGONIES OF VICTORY
While mustering its armed capability, the Party had also intensified its extra-legal struggle against the dictatorship. It helped organized the People’s Convention on Human Rights on August 1977, and helped form a multi-sectoral opposition group called Katipunan ng Bayan para sa Kalayaan (KABAKA) which was headed by Sen. Jovito Salonga as Chairman and Sen. Francisco “Soc” Rodrigo as Vice-Chairman.
But the first big test of the Party’s strength in Metro Manila came during the 1978 Interim National Assembly Elections in which the Party had successfully wrested the control of the machinery of the semi-legal opposition groups Lakas ng Bayan (Strength of the People) from the national democrats.
It had also engineered the highly successful noise barrage on the eve of the elections. During the election day, the Party was able to mobilize 8,000 poll watchers.
This show of force, however, proved to be inimical, as the Party plunged into its first major crisis. The Marcos military subjected thousands of Party followers and cadres who acted as poll watchers to physical injuries and arbitrary detention. A vicious crackdown resulted in the arrest of some 500 Party members and sympathizers while holding a peaceful prayer rally in protest of the massive fraud and terrorism perpetrated by the Marcos regime. Several more Party cadres were captured in subsequent raids. One of the Party’s candidate members, Comrade Teotimo Tantiado, a farmer from Camarines Sur, died from torture wounds.
The volatile situation was further complicated by a split in the Party engineered by some relatively new and ambitious members in the second echelon leadership. This led to the division of the Party into two factions, which in turn, forced the Chairman to resign.
A majority of the cadres refused, however, to recognize the authority of the insurgent faction. Immediately thereafter these Party members organized the National Coordinating Council which was tasked to build and rectify the errors committed.
Despite the many setbacks experienced by the Party, some developments would prove positive for its immediate recovery. Party cadres intensified their organizing work and new people-based organizations under the Party’s influence were formed. The most prominent of these was the Sandigan ng Malayang Kabataan (Union of Free Youth).
While in the process of recovery, the Party would again experience some blows with the military-instigated murders of Comrade Simplicio Pesquiza who organized his fellow workers in Silang, Cavite, and Comrade Elmo Cagape, another Party organizer from Digos, Davao del Sur.
THE AUGUST BOMBINGS AND THE PARTY’S REJECTION OF URBAN TERRORISM
The months of May to October 1980 saw an effort by some elements of democratic opposition, both in the Philippines and abroad, to destabilize the U.S. imperialist-backed Marcos regime and to force the dictator to surrender power through negotiations. An invitation was extended to the NPDSP to adopt this strategy. The party refused to take part because of its belief that no revolutionary strategy will ever succeed without the support of the broad rural masses in the countryside.
However, some unscrupulous organizers projected the Party and Sandigan as the principal elements in the destabilization campaign. Thus, when some 50 bombs exploded in Manila from August to October, the Marcos henchmen were again behind the trails of the Party, pushing it deeper into the underground and seriously stifling its organizing efforts.
Undaunted by such adverse developments, the party continued to consolidate and expand its mass base. On December 1980, the NPDSP dropped the modifier “Nagkakaisang” to demonstrate that the merger process between the LakasDiwa and the PDSP has been completed and as a result the Party readopted its original name when it was founded-the PDSP.
THE MNLF CONNECTION
On March 18, 1981, the Party formally recognized the national identity of the Bangsa Moro people. This resulted in the strengthening of the relations between the Party and the MNLF on one hand, and the Sandigan and the Bangsa Moro Army on the other.
The recognition of the Bangsa Moro people’s identity extended by the Party was aimed at promptly recovering the political unity of the people of the Philippine archipelago and uniting the revolutionary democratic forces against the US-Marcos dictatorship.
THE RECTIFICATION OF ERRORS
Complementing the successful MNLF-PDSP cooperation was the healing of the wounds caused by the 1978 crisis. The first sign that the internal crisis was over was the dissolution of the national Coordinating Council and the election of the Central Committee members held sometime in may 1980. The next year, after consulting the Party cadres nationwide, the Central Committee started the process of rectifying the errors of the past.
This led to the radical amendments in the Party’s organizational structures and policies in order to unify the authority and responsibility in the Party. The Party’s political line was also refined to include such policies as commitment to all forms of struggle (legal, extra-legal, armed struggles), advocacy of authentic politics based on issues, separation from the two extremist forces, consolidation of a democratic socialist coalition, active non-alignment toward a just international order, the promotion of a voluntary politico-economic federation of nations.
It was also at this time that the Party resolved to adopt a two-pronged tactical plan in its battle against the dictatorship. One plan involved the participation of the PDSP and its allies in the armed struggle in the form of people’s war; the other plan involved the consolidation, expansion and intensification of the legal and extra-legal framework of the PDSP and its allies in the hope of toppling the dictatorship through non-violent means.
THE AQUINO ASSASSINATION: EDSA AND ITS CHALLENGES
The advent of the eighties saw the loosening of Marcos’ grips on the country. Despite his efforts to disguise stability by nominally lifting Martial Law, Marcos’ iron fist had already shown signs of weakness. The country’s economy was going from bad to worse; government officials became ungovernable; even the military had already shown signs of displeasure towards the dictator.
Seeing opportunities in these ominous signs, the party intensified its extra-legal work through fraternal organizations. Rallies, symposia, and other forms of protest were mounted. Then the unexpected happened. Ninoy Aquino, the number one oppositionist of Marcos, was assassinated at the Manila as well as in some key cities around the country.
In another desperate bid to assert his authority, Marcos called for a snap presidential election. When Cory Aquino agreed to run, the Party mobilized all its resources behind the widow-in-yellow. Such move was also a desperate one on the part of the Party to oust Marcos through non-violent means.
When Marcos succeeded in manipulating the COMELEC and the Batasang Pambansa into proclaiming him as winner, the Party started focusing its strategy on the armed struggle. But the EDSA uprising came. Although most Party leaders already seemed wary about non-violent struggle, they nevertheless rode on to the idea and mobilized all its mass bases, even those from as far as Batangas and Pampanga to form a significant part of what is now known as people power.
Two years have passed after the events at EDSA. Although Cory Aquino has yet to initiate a significant change in the system, the PDSP has no regrets participating in the uprising. On the contrary the party makes a firm resolve to protect the gains of the EDSA experiences and make the most out of the present situation.
This can be attested by the resolution of the Party’s last Reconstitutive Congress to come out into open and join the electoral exercises in the future. The PDSP is already confident of its strength. It is already ready to face the challenges from any fronts, and most willing to submit its ideals and programs to the citizens of the Philippines.
DURING THE RESTORATION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
On April 1986: Madrid exiles return to the homeland, December 1987: Congress of Reorganization, at Sacred Heart Novitiate, Quezon City; Chair: Norberto Gonzales; General Secretary: Marianito Canonigo.
During the Aquino administration the PDSP helps in the organization and mobilization of democratic sectoral and multisectoral groups, in order to consolidate democracy, help in the delivery of social services, and combat attempts of the extreme left and the extreme right to seize state power.
10 December 1990, Human Rights Day: New People’s Army assassins kill Negros sugar worker leaders Comrade Ernesto Gonzales and party ally Edilberto Federico, after they barged in at a meeting of the Lakas Manggagawa Labor Center (LMLC) at the Institute of Social Order (ISO), Social Development Complex, Ateneo de Manila University
March 1990: PDSP attains recognition by the Commission on Elections as a national political party.
1991: Second Congress of the PDSP, at Institute of Social Order, Santa Ana, Manila; Chair: Norberto Gonzales; General Secretary: Rolando Librojo
1995: PDSP becomes a consultative member of the Socialist Internationale.1995: Third Congress of the PDSP, at Auditorium of the Social Development Complex at the Loyola Heights Campus of the Ateneo de Manila University; a faction splits away to eventually form the Social Democratic Caucus; Norberto Gonzales re-elected Chair, Efren Villaseñor elected General Secretary
RECENT DEVELOPMENTSAugust 2000 to January 2001: PDSP plays major role in the impeachment of former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, and in the accession to power of President Gloria Macapagal - Arroyo
PDSP enters the administration coalition, with party Chair Norberto Gonzales becoming Presidential Adviser for Special Concerns in 2001, and becoming National Security Adviser in 2005
27-29 December 2003: Special Congress of the PDSP, at Bay View Hotel, Manila ; Norberto Gonzales re-elected Chair, Elizabeth Angsioco elected Vice-Chair, Timoteo Aranjuez elected General Secretary
2001, 2004, 2007 elections: gradual increase in electoral successes; in local government units and in the House of Representatives
Implementation of Party Response to the Revolutionary Situation (2005) improves party systems, leads to recruitment of talented and trained persons, makes it more effective, better able to project its position; consolidation ongoing
January 2007: Atty. Ramel Muria becomes Acting General Secretary
On the Spratlys
China shows might in South China Sea
Security chief Gonzales worried by move
By Christian V. EsguerraPhilippine Daily Inquirer Agence France-Presse
Posted date: March 16, 2009
MANILA, Philippines—China’s dispatch of a state-of-the-art patrol ship in the South China Sea doesn’t necessarily smack of gunboat diplomacy, but Malacañang is taking it seriously.
National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales Sunday said he would call for an immediate meeting of the Cabinet’s security group to discuss the Chinese action in the wake of Beijing’s protest over the signing of the Philippine Archipelagic Baselines Law.
“The deployment of the patrol ship was a message and we cannot just ignore it,” Gonzales told the Philippine Daily Inquirer in a phone interview. “We have to take it seriously.”
China’s state media Sunday reported that the country had dispatched its “most modern patrol ship” in the South China Sea following an incident with a US naval vessel and the signing of the Philippine baselines law.
“This should remind us that even in this era of dialogue and understanding in the world, there will always be nations that will show might and threaten perceived weak nations like us,” Gonzales said.
He said the meeting of the national security cluster would tackle the Philippine government’s response to the ship deployment in the context of the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.
“That’s where we should be going,” he said. “The only thing we can do is to resort to diplomacy.”
In the declaration, China and Southeast Asian nations agreed to “exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays and other features, and to handle their differences in a constructive manner.”
Baselines bill ‘illegal’
China had earlier protested the signing of the baselines bill, describing it as “illegal.”
But the Philippine government maintained that it was standing by its claim on the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal—an area potentially rich in oil.
The baselines law excludes the disputed Kalayaan Group of Islands and the Scarborough Shoal from the archipelago, treating them instead as part of a “regime of islands.”
Still, China was adamant that the Philippines was claiming its territories in the Spratlys, particularly Huangyan Island and the Nansha Islands.
Gonzales said the Chinese protest could be considered a form of diplomatic “posturing.”
Press Secretary Cerge Remonde Sunday described Beijing’s move as a “normal conduct in international diplomacy.”
“We should not be worried about it,” Remonde said in his Sunday media forum on state-owned Radyo ng Bayan. “The United Nations will be the final arbiter of the issue.”
UN Law of the Sea
Remonde maintained that the baselines law was consistent with requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
“What our President and our government (officials) did was in accordance to their sworn constitutional duty which is to uphold and protect the sovereignty of our country,” he said.
Remonde said the Philippine government would also have lodged a similar diplomatic protest if China or other claimants of the disputed island came up with an official action similar to the baselines law.
No official reaction has been issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, but a DFA official who did not wish to be named said that the Chinese move seemed to comply with the 2002 declaration, particularly its provision on notification coursed through official media.
Beijing News said the Chinese vessel would conduct patrols of what it called China’s exclusive maritime zone in the disputed waters surrounding the Paracel and Spratlys, according to Agence France Presse.
The report said that the converted naval rescue ship would aid Chinese fishing boats and transport vessels.
Standoff in South China Sea
Tensions in the area rose when the United States sent destroyers to international waters off southern China to protect a naval surveillance patrol that was involved in a standoff with
Chinese vessels.
China said the US patrol vessels were within its 200-kilometer economic exclusive zone, but the United States has insisted they were in international waters.
The Spratly and Paracel island chains have been flash points for years.
The Spratlys are claimed in full or part by China and Vietnam, as well as the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, and the Paracels are claimed by China, which now occupies them, as well as by Vietnam and Taiwan. With reports from Jerome Aning and Agence France-Presse.
Security chief Gonzales worried by move
By Christian V. EsguerraPhilippine Daily Inquirer Agence France-Presse
Posted date: March 16, 2009
MANILA, Philippines—China’s dispatch of a state-of-the-art patrol ship in the South China Sea doesn’t necessarily smack of gunboat diplomacy, but Malacañang is taking it seriously.
National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales Sunday said he would call for an immediate meeting of the Cabinet’s security group to discuss the Chinese action in the wake of Beijing’s protest over the signing of the Philippine Archipelagic Baselines Law.
“The deployment of the patrol ship was a message and we cannot just ignore it,” Gonzales told the Philippine Daily Inquirer in a phone interview. “We have to take it seriously.”
China’s state media Sunday reported that the country had dispatched its “most modern patrol ship” in the South China Sea following an incident with a US naval vessel and the signing of the Philippine baselines law.
“This should remind us that even in this era of dialogue and understanding in the world, there will always be nations that will show might and threaten perceived weak nations like us,” Gonzales said.
He said the meeting of the national security cluster would tackle the Philippine government’s response to the ship deployment in the context of the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.
“That’s where we should be going,” he said. “The only thing we can do is to resort to diplomacy.”
In the declaration, China and Southeast Asian nations agreed to “exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays and other features, and to handle their differences in a constructive manner.”
Baselines bill ‘illegal’
China had earlier protested the signing of the baselines bill, describing it as “illegal.”
But the Philippine government maintained that it was standing by its claim on the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal—an area potentially rich in oil.
The baselines law excludes the disputed Kalayaan Group of Islands and the Scarborough Shoal from the archipelago, treating them instead as part of a “regime of islands.”
Still, China was adamant that the Philippines was claiming its territories in the Spratlys, particularly Huangyan Island and the Nansha Islands.
Gonzales said the Chinese protest could be considered a form of diplomatic “posturing.”
Press Secretary Cerge Remonde Sunday described Beijing’s move as a “normal conduct in international diplomacy.”
“We should not be worried about it,” Remonde said in his Sunday media forum on state-owned Radyo ng Bayan. “The United Nations will be the final arbiter of the issue.”
UN Law of the Sea
Remonde maintained that the baselines law was consistent with requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
“What our President and our government (officials) did was in accordance to their sworn constitutional duty which is to uphold and protect the sovereignty of our country,” he said.
Remonde said the Philippine government would also have lodged a similar diplomatic protest if China or other claimants of the disputed island came up with an official action similar to the baselines law.
No official reaction has been issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, but a DFA official who did not wish to be named said that the Chinese move seemed to comply with the 2002 declaration, particularly its provision on notification coursed through official media.
Beijing News said the Chinese vessel would conduct patrols of what it called China’s exclusive maritime zone in the disputed waters surrounding the Paracel and Spratlys, according to Agence France Presse.
The report said that the converted naval rescue ship would aid Chinese fishing boats and transport vessels.
Standoff in South China Sea
Tensions in the area rose when the United States sent destroyers to international waters off southern China to protect a naval surveillance patrol that was involved in a standoff with
Chinese vessels.
China said the US patrol vessels were within its 200-kilometer economic exclusive zone, but the United States has insisted they were in international waters.
The Spratly and Paracel island chains have been flash points for years.
The Spratlys are claimed in full or part by China and Vietnam, as well as the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, and the Paracels are claimed by China, which now occupies them, as well as by Vietnam and Taiwan. With reports from Jerome Aning and Agence France-Presse.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
On Open Election System
Another kind of 'hybrid' COMMONSENSE By Marichu A. Villanueva Updated March 02, 2009 12:00 AM
There’s a different kind of “hybrid” system, with manual vote counting but automated canvassing that perhaps could be feasibly adopted in the Philippines for the coming May 2010 national elections. Such a proposal was presented by former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman Christian Monsod before the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines at their plenary held January in Manila .
At the end of his presentation at the CBCP, at least 39 bishops signed a manifesto endorsing this “hybrid” system of automated cum manual elections as a better and more cost-efficient poll counting and canvassing system. Monsod calls it as the open election system and refuses to describe it as a kind of “hybrid” election system. Nonetheless, Monsod’s OES was endorsed by the CBCP to the Comelec for adoption under its poll automation program.
National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales noted Monsod’s proposal could be a better alternative than the “hybrid” poll scheme proposal by the House of Representatives. This is because, he pointed out, it squarely addresses the “cheating” concerns aired by both camps of the administration and opposition, especially those running for the May 2010 national and local elections.
He maybe a Cabinet member of President Arroyo but Gonzales believes Monsod’s alternative “hybrid” system of election is more acceptable than the Palace-backed fully automated polls. Gonzales, who heads his own Partido Demokratiko- Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (PDSP), animatedly explained this to us when I bumped into him along with former House Speaker Jose de Venecia during the wake of the mother of Paraña-que City Rep.Roilo Golez Friday night at Mt. Carmel Church in Quezon City .
Thus, Gonzales got a ribbing from Golez and De Venecia that if he really is a staunch supporter of Monsod's OES , as the National Security Adviser he should start it first at the home grounds and convince his boss at the Palace to endorse the Monsod scheme. Unfortunately, Gonzales ruefully admitted, he is also unsuccessful with his Cabinet peers to join him in this crusade.
Monsod estimated the OES would only cost the government between P2 to P4 billion at the most compared to the P11.3 billion that Comelec wants for its poll automation. Given the shortened timetable that the Comelec would have to prepare for the automated polls, there is merit on Monsod’s proposal as some kind of a good transition period to full automation after its test run in 2010.
The full automation program of the Comelec would adopt an optical mark reader (OMR) from voting to canvassing to transmission of results of the entire national and local elections.
Monsod’s ‘hybrid’ proposal is to do the manual voting and counting at the precinct level but the vote canvassing and transmission of election results from the town to the municipal to the provincial all the way up to the national at the Comelec central office in Manila would be computerized. But only one system will be used for all the candidates. This Monsod says would conform with the requirements of Comelec at definitely much lower cost.
Monsod’s idea is to take advantage of the open access election system whereby the general public can closely monitor the poll canvassing through the internet. This is unlike the computer technology of the Comelec which is a “registered” system and therefore its use and access is restricted. The “hybrid’ proposal of Monsod is more transparent as this would allow the public to closely monitor the election process so the people can just use their computer internet access to click to the Comelec canvassing site at the comforts of their homes or offices or at internet cafes.
Opposition Representatives led by Golez, meanwhile, have proposed a “hybrid” system of elections in lieu of the fully automated polls being strongly pushed by both the Comelec and the Palace. In the House-proposed “hybrid” system, there would be two systems of elections.
They want the voting and canvassing of the local polls done manually while the automated electoral process would be applied to senatorial, vice presidential, and presidential candidates.
The House had reportedly pre-conditioned the approval of Comelec”s P11.3 billion supplemental budget for poll automation to a companion bill that would apply a “hybrid” system of elections. Comelec officials led by its chairman, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose Melo warned against the House “hybrid” proposal as something that could bring back the ghosts of the “Hello, Garci” election fraud scandal. Melo is afraid that too much human intervention in the election process would not be eliminated if the manual election process would still be used in the 2010 polls.
But during the House hearing on the poll automation budget, Golez found to his dismay that some of the Comelec commissioners may not be even computer-literate. This he sensed when none of the Comelec commissioners even has an e-mail address when he queried them to test them if they understand anything about computer technology.
Golez is willing to consider the “hybrid” election system of Monsod. However, the National Movement for Free Elections have been pushing for Comelec to adopt its full automation. Gonzales expressed disappointment that Namfrel chairperson, former Ambassador Henrietta “Tita” De Villa gave all-out support for the full automation of the Comelec.
It would not be surprising for her to support this because De Villa, who also heads the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), sits as a member of the Comelec advisory council on poll automation. Lately, however, Melo has taken an open mind to consider Monsod's OES. Surely, this would make Namfrel-PPCRV shift to re-think her position on the matter.
Congress is set to adjourn for their Lenten break this week and sessions would resume on April 12. Press Secretary Cerge Remonde strongly indicated President Arroyo is open to call for “special sessions” of Congress to ensure the passage into law of the poll automation budget. The Comelec chief had earlier moved back their timeline for the approval of the supplemental budget to April 2.
In the meantime, a decision has to be made now on the “hybrid” or fully automated system of elections.
There’s a different kind of “hybrid” system, with manual vote counting but automated canvassing that perhaps could be feasibly adopted in the Philippines for the coming May 2010 national elections. Such a proposal was presented by former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman Christian Monsod before the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines at their plenary held January in Manila .
At the end of his presentation at the CBCP, at least 39 bishops signed a manifesto endorsing this “hybrid” system of automated cum manual elections as a better and more cost-efficient poll counting and canvassing system. Monsod calls it as the open election system and refuses to describe it as a kind of “hybrid” election system. Nonetheless, Monsod’s OES was endorsed by the CBCP to the Comelec for adoption under its poll automation program.
National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales noted Monsod’s proposal could be a better alternative than the “hybrid” poll scheme proposal by the House of Representatives. This is because, he pointed out, it squarely addresses the “cheating” concerns aired by both camps of the administration and opposition, especially those running for the May 2010 national and local elections.
He maybe a Cabinet member of President Arroyo but Gonzales believes Monsod’s alternative “hybrid” system of election is more acceptable than the Palace-backed fully automated polls. Gonzales, who heads his own Partido Demokratiko- Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (PDSP), animatedly explained this to us when I bumped into him along with former House Speaker Jose de Venecia during the wake of the mother of Paraña-que City Rep.Roilo Golez Friday night at Mt. Carmel Church in Quezon City .
Thus, Gonzales got a ribbing from Golez and De Venecia that if he really is a staunch supporter of Monsod's OES , as the National Security Adviser he should start it first at the home grounds and convince his boss at the Palace to endorse the Monsod scheme. Unfortunately, Gonzales ruefully admitted, he is also unsuccessful with his Cabinet peers to join him in this crusade.
Monsod estimated the OES would only cost the government between P2 to P4 billion at the most compared to the P11.3 billion that Comelec wants for its poll automation. Given the shortened timetable that the Comelec would have to prepare for the automated polls, there is merit on Monsod’s proposal as some kind of a good transition period to full automation after its test run in 2010.
The full automation program of the Comelec would adopt an optical mark reader (OMR) from voting to canvassing to transmission of results of the entire national and local elections.
Monsod’s ‘hybrid’ proposal is to do the manual voting and counting at the precinct level but the vote canvassing and transmission of election results from the town to the municipal to the provincial all the way up to the national at the Comelec central office in Manila would be computerized. But only one system will be used for all the candidates. This Monsod says would conform with the requirements of Comelec at definitely much lower cost.
Monsod’s idea is to take advantage of the open access election system whereby the general public can closely monitor the poll canvassing through the internet. This is unlike the computer technology of the Comelec which is a “registered” system and therefore its use and access is restricted. The “hybrid’ proposal of Monsod is more transparent as this would allow the public to closely monitor the election process so the people can just use their computer internet access to click to the Comelec canvassing site at the comforts of their homes or offices or at internet cafes.
Opposition Representatives led by Golez, meanwhile, have proposed a “hybrid” system of elections in lieu of the fully automated polls being strongly pushed by both the Comelec and the Palace. In the House-proposed “hybrid” system, there would be two systems of elections.
They want the voting and canvassing of the local polls done manually while the automated electoral process would be applied to senatorial, vice presidential, and presidential candidates.
The House had reportedly pre-conditioned the approval of Comelec”s P11.3 billion supplemental budget for poll automation to a companion bill that would apply a “hybrid” system of elections. Comelec officials led by its chairman, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose Melo warned against the House “hybrid” proposal as something that could bring back the ghosts of the “Hello, Garci” election fraud scandal. Melo is afraid that too much human intervention in the election process would not be eliminated if the manual election process would still be used in the 2010 polls.
But during the House hearing on the poll automation budget, Golez found to his dismay that some of the Comelec commissioners may not be even computer-literate. This he sensed when none of the Comelec commissioners even has an e-mail address when he queried them to test them if they understand anything about computer technology.
Golez is willing to consider the “hybrid” election system of Monsod. However, the National Movement for Free Elections have been pushing for Comelec to adopt its full automation. Gonzales expressed disappointment that Namfrel chairperson, former Ambassador Henrietta “Tita” De Villa gave all-out support for the full automation of the Comelec.
It would not be surprising for her to support this because De Villa, who also heads the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), sits as a member of the Comelec advisory council on poll automation. Lately, however, Melo has taken an open mind to consider Monsod's OES. Surely, this would make Namfrel-PPCRV shift to re-think her position on the matter.
Congress is set to adjourn for their Lenten break this week and sessions would resume on April 12. Press Secretary Cerge Remonde strongly indicated President Arroyo is open to call for “special sessions” of Congress to ensure the passage into law of the poll automation budget. The Comelec chief had earlier moved back their timeline for the approval of the supplemental budget to April 2.
In the meantime, a decision has to be made now on the “hybrid” or fully automated system of elections.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Authentic Agrarian Reform Manifesto
Manifesto: Advance authentic agrarian reform
that achieves rural development
and industrialization!
Consequences of Joint Congressional Resolution Extending the CARP
On 17 December 2008 a Joint Congressional Resolution was passed extending the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for six months, twenty years after its enactment, with the proviso that takes away the obligatory character of the land acquisition and distribution (LAD) aspect of that program. The Resolution can become law if not vetoed by the President. We would then have either "LAD on demand" or "optional LAD" or both.
"LAD on demand" would be dependent upon the strength and readiness of farmers' organizations loudly demanding LAD in their areas and the effective budgets of CARP in the government budget (General Appropriations Act). "Optional LAD" on the other hand would make the program completely dependent on landlord voluntarism, or an extension of landowners' voluntary offer to sell (VOS)—not strictly impossible, if one looks at the financial incentives. In either case the Joint Resolution will most probably end up in the Supreme Court as a constitutional question.
Agrarian Reform and Rural Development in the Philippine Constitution
In Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) of the Philippine Constitution we, the sovereign Filipino people, who had earlier implored the aid of Almighty God to build a just and humane society, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law, put it in black and white as a constitutional mandate that "the State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform" (Article II, Section 21).
In Article XII, discussing the National Economy and Patrimony, our Constitution states that "The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged" (Article XII, Section 1).
To that end, the Constitution immediately follows up with the mandate that "The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets" (Article XII, Section 1).
Not content with that, the Constitution, in Article XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights) even devotes several sections to Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform (Article XIII, Sections 4 to 8), in one section of which it would mandate the State to "undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farm workers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farm workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof" (Article XIII, Section 4, underscoring supplied).
Unfulfilled Promises Regarding Agrarian Reform
We have often heard the managers of agrarian reform report a two percent reduction in poverty after many years of spending billions upon billions of pesos in the land acquisition and land parceling-out program. This simply is not good enough!
Many long years back we were assured by government, in the very first sections of the agrarian reform law, that the "welfare of the landless farmers and farm workers will receive the highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization" (R.A. 6657, Chapter I, Section 2). In this way, had the conditions for economic development and the creation of new wealth been already put in place, even in the subsequent years, including giving tillers access to capital, technology and markets, many of our people could already have become richer or less poor.
Our Constitution was quite explicit in mandating the State to "provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services" (Article XIII, Section 5).
The State could have provided "farmers and farm workers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of agricultural lands" (R.A. 6657, Chapter I, Section 2). Needless to say, however, this did not happen.
The State promised to be guided "by the principles that land has a social function and land ownership has a social responsibility" (ibid.). For perhaps the first time in Philippine history, the non-absolute character of land ownership was affirmed in law. "Owners of agricultural land have the obligation … to make the land productive" (ibid.). In that regard, through the Constitution the State committed to assist them, as already stated, "through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing and other support services" (Article III, Section 5).
But again, obviously, the commitment was not adequately realized—in part because of the imbalanced identification of the whole agrarian reform program with one part thereof—land acquisition and distribution—which would routinely eat up more than three fourths of the total program budget to the near-total neglect of its connection to the very goals of the program, namely the enhanced dignity and improved quality of farmers' lives and people's liberation from poverty with the promised rural development and industrialization.
Elsewhere, moral leaders had warned that "the experience of agrarian reform, put into action by many governments and many countries, has failed miserably …because of a kind of 'original sin' which impeded their success: that of being almost exclusively identified with the expropriation of land and its subsequent sub-division. All this is certainly necessary and fundamental ... but it is not enough (in no. 3 of "Land, A Common Good of All Humanity," a statement by Roger Cardinal Etchegaray on the occasion of the issuance by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace on 23 November 1997 of the document "Towards a Better Distribution of Land: the Challenge of Agrarian Reform").
Taking Up the Correct Underlying Principle of Agrarian Reform
We support the vigorous and persistent efforts of various farmers' organizations and their supporters from people's organizations, social movements, and institutions, including the Church, to correct the defects in the present CARP and to come up with a new agrarian reform law and program that will truly benefit our farmers and the country at large.
In this connection, we strongly reaffirm and emphatically reiterate the underlying principle of agrarian reform: land does not belong to the landowners alone—old or new—but to all the people. It is a limited resource for a growing number of humans, all of whom, to the very last one, are without question "land animals." The very space in which to extend their being involves the occupation of land. Land ownership has to be inescapably regarded as stewardship—that is, merely a means to attain the ends of land use which are: food security for all; decent habitats for all; and an ecologically harmonious economic regime for the common good.
We therefore urge the responsible authorities and the people generally, but especially our fellow farmers and farm workers, to re-focus attention on these original goals of agrarian reform—greater and sustainable productivity of agricultural lands, and moving the nation towards rural development and industrialization.
The current legislative-executive crisis offers us a unique opportunity to craft a new law on agrarian reform and rural development. We believe it is not too late to achieve authentic agrarian reform and thus establish the foundation for our country's leap to overcoming poverty and Third World nation status and finally becoming a strong carefully industrialized national economy—in other words, a First World country at last.
Admitting and Rectifying the Failures of the State
This would mean affirming anew, as we do now, that without this kind of development in the economy, even social justice measures will redound to worse poverty and will fail to bring about prosperity for the many. This has been the Philippine experience for decades now, as various governments tried to implement a "land reform" program in the crude sense of land acquisition and distribution, but failed to focus on the clear goals of development and industrialization.
The state even missed out on the constitutionally and legally mandated support services in the three crucial stages of the process related to the production of agricultural goods—pre-production, production proper, and post-production, and thus our newly "emancipated" peasants have had a very hard time coping. Many of them ended up much worse off than during their share tenancy years. Who could blame them if they often felt that they would have been better off with a caring paternalistic feudal lord?
Most significantly, Central Luzon and Southern Tagalog, which were the original regions that demanded authentic agrarian reforms, hardly make it to the top five regions of agrarian reform beneficiaries. Massive land conversion to purposes other than agricultural left many of these areas with neither farm nor farmers. In many areas, the CARP became the worst real estate scam in Philippine history, barring none.
Under the law, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was mandated "to carry out land consolidation projects to promote equal distribution of landholdings, to provide the needed infrastructure in agriculture, and to conserve soil fertility and prevent erosion" (R..A. 6657, Section 39). This hardly happened. What often happened was the exercise by DAR of its power under the CARL that "when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes … to authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition" (Section 65). And so it happened that one hectare after another of the most valuable top soil came under the bulldozer, never again to contribute to our people's food security.
We must stop the folly before it is really too late. Let us craft a more focused piece of legislation now. Mere extension or more of the same constitutes a grave danger to our national security.
Return to Basics
It is time to return to basics. We must effectively recognize Land—including all natural resources—as a distinct factor of production, distinct from and yet together with Labor and Capital, making the factors of production not effectively two but rather three in all. Labor and Capital represent human effort and deserve fair recompense. Land, however, is another matter. It is produced by no person's effort or responsibility. It is one of the things that are "just there," and whoever uses it may prevent others from doing so—thus making it imperative for a given society to agree on the rules of the use of land. Hence the many provisions of the Constitution practically redefining land ownership in the nature of stewardship.
The paramount rule should be for society to collect appropriate rent for the Land—and for all other natural resources—from those who "own" or command exclusive use of what is unquestionably common heritage. To date we have not yet passed any law that would tax away all or most of the "economic rent"—i.e. the rent that raw land or its resources would bring on the open market. We have not yet broken the bad habit of trying to tax human-made wealth instead of more ethically replacing such taxes with rent for "ownership" of what belongs to all, like land and natural resources, and whose value is, anyway, quite clearly, due to the existence of society and its activities. When we pass at last the laws adopting the law of economic rent, we shall more than afford to let it replace most existing taxes and still have more than enough of our wealth to spare for national development.
Immediate Measures
For the immediate, however, we social democrats from among farmers and farm workers of the Philippines and their allies hereby call for a stop to business as usual in the LAD aspect of the total agrarian reform program that would evidence a national tendency to throw good money after bad. How many so-called ARBs (agrarian reform beneficiaries) are there who only exist on paper but do not actually till the land, or who have received CLOAs (certificates of land ownership) without really knowing what the piece of paper is all about? Scarcity of land resource demands that the government conserve the same for the whole citizenry and for generations to come. Hence it is imperative for the government to secure, for the poor, equitable access to our common land resource
We reiterate that no one may appropriate the land to the prejudice or exclusion of the society and of generations to come. We should rather warmly welcome stewardship agreements founded on the consideration that beneficiaries will make them productive and will pay land value taxes as rents thereof.
We urge government to help beneficiaries consolidate small farm holdings to correct the negative impacts of land parceling. Consolidation may take the form of progressive integration of beneficiaries with farmers' collectives and cooperatives. These farmers' collectives and cooperatives shall carry on the management of the consolidated farms within their territory and pool available resources to ensure greater returns to owner-cultivators and sustained productivity. In this way responsibility for sustained increase in productivity becomes communal. In such a situation, individual cultivators will enjoy psychological security, knowing that they are not alone in confronting the manifold problems related to farming (cf. R.A. 6657, Chapter IX, Section 39). Preserving the communal nature of land and other natural resources will strongly promote greater and sustainable productivity.
We exhort the government to convert idle public lands suitable to agriculture into state farms, place these under the management and operation of farmers' cooperatives and associations, and invite in willing landless farmers, by way of "stewardship contracts" under terms and conditions that will ensure maximum returns to them, sustained productivity, and government revenues through lease rentals or in the form of the land value tax.
We call upon government to advance as much as feasible the stewardship system over agricultural lands. To this end the government shall conduct a thorough and conscientious audit of all CLOAs awarded. Such lands under CLOAs that are found to be in the possession of ARBs other than the original awardees shall be deemed to be of public domain, and will form part of lands for consolidation, cultivation and development within the stewardship system.
We ask government to give priority to farmers' and producers' cooperatives and associations as beneficiaries of the land consolidation program conditioned on non-parceling of these lands after distribution and their non-conversion to other uses by the beneficiaries.
We press government to support individual beneficiaries in the effective use of land, of modern technology, and of environment-friendly farm practices to ensure just returns and productivity. We urge it to speed up the consolidation of fragmented farms, with sufficient regard to the rights of owner-cultivators, and to ensure better access to infrastructures, technology, farm inputs and material, and financial assistance from public and private agencies.
We ask government to support the establishment of an Agricultural Marketing Service such as the one envisioned in the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA), taking into account the following reflections: that agricultural prosperity and food security are not merely about food production and productivity; that today they are more about post-production and the appropriate food marketing systems that relate to the basic and complex process of moving food and farm products from producer to consumer—quickly, efficiently, and with fairness to all.
In this connection, we urge the government to set up the requisite big post-harvest facilities of sufficient number and appropriately distributed location. These will be administered be farmers' cooperatives or corporations, and used by farmers upon payment of reasonable toll.
Finally, we hereby declare all agrarian reform beneficiaries' immediate and absolute freedom from amortization debts to the Land Bank of the Philippines. By historical logic and definition, the former tenants and leaseholders—the poor farmers as a class—have more than paid their dues to both landlord and State down the decades and down the centuries. We therefore link hands today firmly and rise to a new freedom—the freedom of the children of the soil who collectively own or cultivate the land and abide in life-giving harmony with it. We rise and shout: Advance authentic agrarian reform that achieves rural development and industrialization!
Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas
(Philippine Democratic Socialist Party)
30 December 2008
that achieves rural development
and industrialization!
Consequences of Joint Congressional Resolution Extending the CARP
On 17 December 2008 a Joint Congressional Resolution was passed extending the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for six months, twenty years after its enactment, with the proviso that takes away the obligatory character of the land acquisition and distribution (LAD) aspect of that program. The Resolution can become law if not vetoed by the President. We would then have either "LAD on demand" or "optional LAD" or both.
"LAD on demand" would be dependent upon the strength and readiness of farmers' organizations loudly demanding LAD in their areas and the effective budgets of CARP in the government budget (General Appropriations Act). "Optional LAD" on the other hand would make the program completely dependent on landlord voluntarism, or an extension of landowners' voluntary offer to sell (VOS)—not strictly impossible, if one looks at the financial incentives. In either case the Joint Resolution will most probably end up in the Supreme Court as a constitutional question.
Agrarian Reform and Rural Development in the Philippine Constitution
In Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) of the Philippine Constitution we, the sovereign Filipino people, who had earlier implored the aid of Almighty God to build a just and humane society, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law, put it in black and white as a constitutional mandate that "the State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform" (Article II, Section 21).
In Article XII, discussing the National Economy and Patrimony, our Constitution states that "The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged" (Article XII, Section 1).
To that end, the Constitution immediately follows up with the mandate that "The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets" (Article XII, Section 1).
Not content with that, the Constitution, in Article XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights) even devotes several sections to Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform (Article XIII, Sections 4 to 8), in one section of which it would mandate the State to "undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farm workers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farm workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof" (Article XIII, Section 4, underscoring supplied).
Unfulfilled Promises Regarding Agrarian Reform
We have often heard the managers of agrarian reform report a two percent reduction in poverty after many years of spending billions upon billions of pesos in the land acquisition and land parceling-out program. This simply is not good enough!
Many long years back we were assured by government, in the very first sections of the agrarian reform law, that the "welfare of the landless farmers and farm workers will receive the highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization" (R.A. 6657, Chapter I, Section 2). In this way, had the conditions for economic development and the creation of new wealth been already put in place, even in the subsequent years, including giving tillers access to capital, technology and markets, many of our people could already have become richer or less poor.
Our Constitution was quite explicit in mandating the State to "provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services" (Article XIII, Section 5).
The State could have provided "farmers and farm workers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of agricultural lands" (R.A. 6657, Chapter I, Section 2). Needless to say, however, this did not happen.
The State promised to be guided "by the principles that land has a social function and land ownership has a social responsibility" (ibid.). For perhaps the first time in Philippine history, the non-absolute character of land ownership was affirmed in law. "Owners of agricultural land have the obligation … to make the land productive" (ibid.). In that regard, through the Constitution the State committed to assist them, as already stated, "through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing and other support services" (Article III, Section 5).
But again, obviously, the commitment was not adequately realized—in part because of the imbalanced identification of the whole agrarian reform program with one part thereof—land acquisition and distribution—which would routinely eat up more than three fourths of the total program budget to the near-total neglect of its connection to the very goals of the program, namely the enhanced dignity and improved quality of farmers' lives and people's liberation from poverty with the promised rural development and industrialization.
Elsewhere, moral leaders had warned that "the experience of agrarian reform, put into action by many governments and many countries, has failed miserably …because of a kind of 'original sin' which impeded their success: that of being almost exclusively identified with the expropriation of land and its subsequent sub-division. All this is certainly necessary and fundamental ... but it is not enough (in no. 3 of "Land, A Common Good of All Humanity," a statement by Roger Cardinal Etchegaray on the occasion of the issuance by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace on 23 November 1997 of the document "Towards a Better Distribution of Land: the Challenge of Agrarian Reform").
Taking Up the Correct Underlying Principle of Agrarian Reform
We support the vigorous and persistent efforts of various farmers' organizations and their supporters from people's organizations, social movements, and institutions, including the Church, to correct the defects in the present CARP and to come up with a new agrarian reform law and program that will truly benefit our farmers and the country at large.
In this connection, we strongly reaffirm and emphatically reiterate the underlying principle of agrarian reform: land does not belong to the landowners alone—old or new—but to all the people. It is a limited resource for a growing number of humans, all of whom, to the very last one, are without question "land animals." The very space in which to extend their being involves the occupation of land. Land ownership has to be inescapably regarded as stewardship—that is, merely a means to attain the ends of land use which are: food security for all; decent habitats for all; and an ecologically harmonious economic regime for the common good.
We therefore urge the responsible authorities and the people generally, but especially our fellow farmers and farm workers, to re-focus attention on these original goals of agrarian reform—greater and sustainable productivity of agricultural lands, and moving the nation towards rural development and industrialization.
The current legislative-executive crisis offers us a unique opportunity to craft a new law on agrarian reform and rural development. We believe it is not too late to achieve authentic agrarian reform and thus establish the foundation for our country's leap to overcoming poverty and Third World nation status and finally becoming a strong carefully industrialized national economy—in other words, a First World country at last.
Admitting and Rectifying the Failures of the State
This would mean affirming anew, as we do now, that without this kind of development in the economy, even social justice measures will redound to worse poverty and will fail to bring about prosperity for the many. This has been the Philippine experience for decades now, as various governments tried to implement a "land reform" program in the crude sense of land acquisition and distribution, but failed to focus on the clear goals of development and industrialization.
The state even missed out on the constitutionally and legally mandated support services in the three crucial stages of the process related to the production of agricultural goods—pre-production, production proper, and post-production, and thus our newly "emancipated" peasants have had a very hard time coping. Many of them ended up much worse off than during their share tenancy years. Who could blame them if they often felt that they would have been better off with a caring paternalistic feudal lord?
Most significantly, Central Luzon and Southern Tagalog, which were the original regions that demanded authentic agrarian reforms, hardly make it to the top five regions of agrarian reform beneficiaries. Massive land conversion to purposes other than agricultural left many of these areas with neither farm nor farmers. In many areas, the CARP became the worst real estate scam in Philippine history, barring none.
Under the law, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was mandated "to carry out land consolidation projects to promote equal distribution of landholdings, to provide the needed infrastructure in agriculture, and to conserve soil fertility and prevent erosion" (R..A. 6657, Section 39). This hardly happened. What often happened was the exercise by DAR of its power under the CARL that "when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes … to authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition" (Section 65). And so it happened that one hectare after another of the most valuable top soil came under the bulldozer, never again to contribute to our people's food security.
We must stop the folly before it is really too late. Let us craft a more focused piece of legislation now. Mere extension or more of the same constitutes a grave danger to our national security.
Return to Basics
It is time to return to basics. We must effectively recognize Land—including all natural resources—as a distinct factor of production, distinct from and yet together with Labor and Capital, making the factors of production not effectively two but rather three in all. Labor and Capital represent human effort and deserve fair recompense. Land, however, is another matter. It is produced by no person's effort or responsibility. It is one of the things that are "just there," and whoever uses it may prevent others from doing so—thus making it imperative for a given society to agree on the rules of the use of land. Hence the many provisions of the Constitution practically redefining land ownership in the nature of stewardship.
The paramount rule should be for society to collect appropriate rent for the Land—and for all other natural resources—from those who "own" or command exclusive use of what is unquestionably common heritage. To date we have not yet passed any law that would tax away all or most of the "economic rent"—i.e. the rent that raw land or its resources would bring on the open market. We have not yet broken the bad habit of trying to tax human-made wealth instead of more ethically replacing such taxes with rent for "ownership" of what belongs to all, like land and natural resources, and whose value is, anyway, quite clearly, due to the existence of society and its activities. When we pass at last the laws adopting the law of economic rent, we shall more than afford to let it replace most existing taxes and still have more than enough of our wealth to spare for national development.
Immediate Measures
For the immediate, however, we social democrats from among farmers and farm workers of the Philippines and their allies hereby call for a stop to business as usual in the LAD aspect of the total agrarian reform program that would evidence a national tendency to throw good money after bad. How many so-called ARBs (agrarian reform beneficiaries) are there who only exist on paper but do not actually till the land, or who have received CLOAs (certificates of land ownership) without really knowing what the piece of paper is all about? Scarcity of land resource demands that the government conserve the same for the whole citizenry and for generations to come. Hence it is imperative for the government to secure, for the poor, equitable access to our common land resource
We reiterate that no one may appropriate the land to the prejudice or exclusion of the society and of generations to come. We should rather warmly welcome stewardship agreements founded on the consideration that beneficiaries will make them productive and will pay land value taxes as rents thereof.
We urge government to help beneficiaries consolidate small farm holdings to correct the negative impacts of land parceling. Consolidation may take the form of progressive integration of beneficiaries with farmers' collectives and cooperatives. These farmers' collectives and cooperatives shall carry on the management of the consolidated farms within their territory and pool available resources to ensure greater returns to owner-cultivators and sustained productivity. In this way responsibility for sustained increase in productivity becomes communal. In such a situation, individual cultivators will enjoy psychological security, knowing that they are not alone in confronting the manifold problems related to farming (cf. R.A. 6657, Chapter IX, Section 39). Preserving the communal nature of land and other natural resources will strongly promote greater and sustainable productivity.
We exhort the government to convert idle public lands suitable to agriculture into state farms, place these under the management and operation of farmers' cooperatives and associations, and invite in willing landless farmers, by way of "stewardship contracts" under terms and conditions that will ensure maximum returns to them, sustained productivity, and government revenues through lease rentals or in the form of the land value tax.
We call upon government to advance as much as feasible the stewardship system over agricultural lands. To this end the government shall conduct a thorough and conscientious audit of all CLOAs awarded. Such lands under CLOAs that are found to be in the possession of ARBs other than the original awardees shall be deemed to be of public domain, and will form part of lands for consolidation, cultivation and development within the stewardship system.
We ask government to give priority to farmers' and producers' cooperatives and associations as beneficiaries of the land consolidation program conditioned on non-parceling of these lands after distribution and their non-conversion to other uses by the beneficiaries.
We press government to support individual beneficiaries in the effective use of land, of modern technology, and of environment-friendly farm practices to ensure just returns and productivity. We urge it to speed up the consolidation of fragmented farms, with sufficient regard to the rights of owner-cultivators, and to ensure better access to infrastructures, technology, farm inputs and material, and financial assistance from public and private agencies.
We ask government to support the establishment of an Agricultural Marketing Service such as the one envisioned in the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA), taking into account the following reflections: that agricultural prosperity and food security are not merely about food production and productivity; that today they are more about post-production and the appropriate food marketing systems that relate to the basic and complex process of moving food and farm products from producer to consumer—quickly, efficiently, and with fairness to all.
In this connection, we urge the government to set up the requisite big post-harvest facilities of sufficient number and appropriately distributed location. These will be administered be farmers' cooperatives or corporations, and used by farmers upon payment of reasonable toll.
Finally, we hereby declare all agrarian reform beneficiaries' immediate and absolute freedom from amortization debts to the Land Bank of the Philippines. By historical logic and definition, the former tenants and leaseholders—the poor farmers as a class—have more than paid their dues to both landlord and State down the decades and down the centuries. We therefore link hands today firmly and rise to a new freedom—the freedom of the children of the soil who collectively own or cultivate the land and abide in life-giving harmony with it. We rise and shout: Advance authentic agrarian reform that achieves rural development and industrialization!
Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas
(Philippine Democratic Socialist Party)
30 December 2008
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Social Democratic Proposition
SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PROPOSITION
(January 2008)
A society in crisis
Our society is in the throes of a chronic crisis.
Poverty and lack of opportunities make life increasingly difficult for majority of our people. Many go hungry. Many do not have decent housing. Many do not have access to medical care when they are sick. Many struggle to send their children to school.
Aggregate economic growth in recent years has failed to ease up the situation. The so-called trickle down effect will be hard to come through because economic resources are in the hands of the few. The growth itself is fragile, deriving mainly from the remittances of the OFWs who are growing in number every year.
Grave and long-standing social problems are aggravating the plight of our people and dimming the prospects for uplifting their life. The quality of our education is deteriorating. The violence of rebel and terrorist groups is continuing. Unabated mining and logging are destroying our environment, depleting our natural resources and making our people more and more vulnerable to natural calamities.
Prolonged political crisis
A protracted political crisis is also gripping our country. For years now, our political leaders are locked in a stalemate in a continuing contest for power.
This political crisis is overshadowing, thus worsening, the social crisis. As our politicians bicker ceaselessly, no one is paying attention to the social crisis; no one is providing direction to the country.
Hounded by legitimacy issues and leadership credibility, the administration is extremely unpopular and continues to be very vulnerable to destabilization moves because of its unabated corruption scandals. Thus, it is concerned with fighting for its survival more than anything else. It is in paralysis and cannot govern effectively.
And yet the opposition fails to draw popular support to oust the present administration. Perhaps, people see that the opposition is not offering a real alternative to the present state of affairs. They know that the administration and the opposition are factions of the same political class that has failed to lead our country to progress. The opposition is just impatient in taking their turn on national leadership.
We are an unfortunate people because most of our politicians are decadent, corrupt and selfish. Corruption has permeated all branches of government, from the executive to the legislative bodies to the judiciary. The electoral body itself has become a bastion of corruption, a vehicle for cheating to keep one’s grip on power.
The greatest threat to our future as a people lies in our decadent political leaders. We certainly deserve better leaders in the future.
Revolutionary situation
In keeping away from the ongoing factional competition among our political leaders, our people appear to have become socially and politically apathetic. In truth, they are weary of the present social arrangements and they are disillusioned with our political system.
Our people partook in two people power revolts that led to leadership change and promised societal transformations. They now ask, how come there have been no substantial societal reforms? How come the same rotten political system that they want to get rid of remains, only worse? They have answers to why massive poverty is continuing. They have answers to why our country remains the sick man in this part of the world.
Our people are long crying for radical social changes.
Indeed, our society is in a revolutionary situation! Within the increasing segment of our people who seek radical changes there are armed groups which have the means to push their political and social agenda.
Though desirous of radical societal changes, our people reject totalitarian ideologies and violent undertakings. This is clear enough from their lack of support to the persistent Marxist-Leninist communist movement and to the reckless adventurism of messianic elements of the military.
Our people stand for democracy—that is without doubt. And yet they are fed up with the kind of democracy that we have had for many decades, and the anti-democratic forces are bent on taking advantage of our people’s frustrations and enforcing their own vision of change.
Democratic progressive forces are faced with two options. We can watch our political leaders and anti-democratic forces continue to destroy our democracy. Or we can come together and embark to save our democracy.
The crisis of liberal democracy
Our country has long been governed according to a liberal democratic system that we inherited from our colonial past. It must be that the social and political crises, which have brought us to the present revolutionary situation, have their roots in this system. Our social and political crises are products of the dysfunctions and bankruptcy of liberal democracy.
Liberal democracy is faulty because it stresses individual liberty, gives primacy to free markets and is content with formal democracy including formal equality before the law. It believes that leaving the individuals free to pursue their respective happiness will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It puts its faith in the markets and the ‘rule of law’ to bring about the good society. To the liberal democrats, states should interfere as little as possible in the lives of individuals and leave capitalism to its own devices.
The ills of liberalism and its unbridled capitalism became apparent in Europe even in the early period of industrialization. These ills include dramatic inequalities, massive poverty, social dislocation, social fragmentation and rampant individualism.
In our country where economic disparities are great, our liberal democracy has led to the wealthy few making the democratic processes, including the legal system and the entire political system, their tools in promoting and safeguarding their economic and political interests.
Liberal democracy created our decadent political system that is characterized by lack of authentic politics and the dominance of opportunistic and selfish politicians. Corruption and inefficiency are two of the worst ills of this political system. This political system is captive to the wealthy few who direct the decisions of the state away from the pursuit of the common good and toward favoring their selfish interests. In this system, our political leaders and the wealthy few prevent the emergence of an autonomous and sufficiently strong developmentalist state.
Our peculiar brand of liberal democracy is also responsible for our backward economy that keeps many of our people impoverished, without means to live decently. Content with the profits they extract from export agriculture based on feudal or backward agrarian capitalist land tenure of from other primary industries like logging and mining, our wealthy few and political leaders failed to pursue genuine industrialization as there was no incentive for them to do so. They also blocked agrarian reform, thus stunting the growth of the domestic market for the products of industry. Our liberal democracy engendered bureaucrat and monopoly capitalism that has kept our economy backward and uncompetitive.
Liberal democracy brings freedom and the greatest good for the few in our society while majority of our people languish in poverty and powerlessness. Individualism and inequalities prevent liberal democracy from becoming democracy for all.
Our people are tired of this kind of democracy. As clear as they stand for democracy, they desire a movement away from democracy that is real only for the few.
The social democratic alternative
In the face of our present situation, we invite you to present to consider our alternative to the existing social regime.
Social democracy is our alternative to liberalism.
Champions. Many consider social democracy as the most successful ideology and movement of the 20th century, crediting the application of its values and principles for the most prosperous and harmonious period in European history. Political parties and leaders who champion or subscribe to social democracy have built some of the most progressive and livable societies in the world, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Spain, Canada, Australia and, close to home, Singapore. The successes of social democracy in these societies provide inspiration and hope in the possibility of a better future for our own society.
Objective. The goal of social democracy is to make democracy work for and be meaningful to all by building an affluent society that cares for all of its members and leaves no one. A society founded on social democracy secures the dignity of everyone and provides each one the opportunities to live a good life. Because everyone is cared for, everyone has a stake in the future of this society and this society is cohesive and strong.
Core values. Social democrats believe that such a society is built on the values of freedom, justice and solidarity.
Freedom means the possibility of taking charge of one’s own life and realizing one’s highest potentials. It is based on human dignity and it requires securing the universal basic human rights of the individuals. At the very least, it is society’s responsibility to ensure that every person has the minimum requirements to live in dignity and in freedom. Individual freedom, however, is not absolute. It ends where it impairs the freedom or violates the human rights of others.
Equality refers to the recognition of equal dignity of all persons, regardless of gender, color or beliefs. Another name for this is social justice. Formal equality is not enough. Everyone having the capacity to assert his or her rights is more important. Equality requires society to provide equal freedom and equal chances in life to every person. It calls for fair distribution of property, income and power. It also demands the rejection of any form of discrimination.
Solidarity is the premise that we are here for each other. We shape our lives in one community. We can only have equal freedom and equal chances in life by guaranteeing each other’s rights and looking after each other. We can only improve our society by working together for the common good. Solidarity finds expression in the Filipinos’ “bayanihan spirit” in times of common adversity. It is also expressed in the strong sense of patriotism that banded Filipinos against common enemies in the past or for a great undertaking like the display of people power on EDSA in 1986 and 2001.
Principles and paths. Social democracy asserts the ‘primacy of politics and social cooperation.’ Its vision of society will be achieved through the collective struggle of human beings united by common commitment to the social democratic values.
Though born in response to the ills of unrestrained capitalism, social democracy recognizes the ability of the market to create wealth upon which the good society can be built. Thus, it is committed to acquisition of political power to harness the powers of market forces in the service of the common good, while at the same time protecting the citizenry from their destructive effects. Social democracy asserts social control, through the state, over market forces.
In a social democratic society, the state does not only manage market forces for the common good, it also takes the role of members of families and local communities in pre-capitalist times—that of taking care of people when they could not help themselves. Social democratic government strives to guarantee the basic subsistence of every citizen rather than leaving him or her to his position in the market place. At the very least, social democratic societies ensure fair chances in life to everyone.
Among the core policies and programs that social democrats work for are full employment, universal access to quality education, adequate health care, social security in old age and contingency situations, possibly including unemployment, progressive taxation and redistributive programs.
The implementation of social democracy calls for a state that is strong, patriotic and developmentalist. It requires that the state be liberated from those who possess wealth or those who work for their interests rather than for the common good. It also calls for a state enjoying the support of a patriotic, organized and clearly democratic citizenry.
Social democrats are committed to acquiring political power the way they intend to govern—in partnership with the organized democratic progressive elements of the basic sectors and key guardians of Philippine democracy.
(January 2008)
A society in crisis
Our society is in the throes of a chronic crisis.
Poverty and lack of opportunities make life increasingly difficult for majority of our people. Many go hungry. Many do not have decent housing. Many do not have access to medical care when they are sick. Many struggle to send their children to school.
Aggregate economic growth in recent years has failed to ease up the situation. The so-called trickle down effect will be hard to come through because economic resources are in the hands of the few. The growth itself is fragile, deriving mainly from the remittances of the OFWs who are growing in number every year.
Grave and long-standing social problems are aggravating the plight of our people and dimming the prospects for uplifting their life. The quality of our education is deteriorating. The violence of rebel and terrorist groups is continuing. Unabated mining and logging are destroying our environment, depleting our natural resources and making our people more and more vulnerable to natural calamities.
Prolonged political crisis
A protracted political crisis is also gripping our country. For years now, our political leaders are locked in a stalemate in a continuing contest for power.
This political crisis is overshadowing, thus worsening, the social crisis. As our politicians bicker ceaselessly, no one is paying attention to the social crisis; no one is providing direction to the country.
Hounded by legitimacy issues and leadership credibility, the administration is extremely unpopular and continues to be very vulnerable to destabilization moves because of its unabated corruption scandals. Thus, it is concerned with fighting for its survival more than anything else. It is in paralysis and cannot govern effectively.
And yet the opposition fails to draw popular support to oust the present administration. Perhaps, people see that the opposition is not offering a real alternative to the present state of affairs. They know that the administration and the opposition are factions of the same political class that has failed to lead our country to progress. The opposition is just impatient in taking their turn on national leadership.
We are an unfortunate people because most of our politicians are decadent, corrupt and selfish. Corruption has permeated all branches of government, from the executive to the legislative bodies to the judiciary. The electoral body itself has become a bastion of corruption, a vehicle for cheating to keep one’s grip on power.
The greatest threat to our future as a people lies in our decadent political leaders. We certainly deserve better leaders in the future.
Revolutionary situation
In keeping away from the ongoing factional competition among our political leaders, our people appear to have become socially and politically apathetic. In truth, they are weary of the present social arrangements and they are disillusioned with our political system.
Our people partook in two people power revolts that led to leadership change and promised societal transformations. They now ask, how come there have been no substantial societal reforms? How come the same rotten political system that they want to get rid of remains, only worse? They have answers to why massive poverty is continuing. They have answers to why our country remains the sick man in this part of the world.
Our people are long crying for radical social changes.
Indeed, our society is in a revolutionary situation! Within the increasing segment of our people who seek radical changes there are armed groups which have the means to push their political and social agenda.
Though desirous of radical societal changes, our people reject totalitarian ideologies and violent undertakings. This is clear enough from their lack of support to the persistent Marxist-Leninist communist movement and to the reckless adventurism of messianic elements of the military.
Our people stand for democracy—that is without doubt. And yet they are fed up with the kind of democracy that we have had for many decades, and the anti-democratic forces are bent on taking advantage of our people’s frustrations and enforcing their own vision of change.
Democratic progressive forces are faced with two options. We can watch our political leaders and anti-democratic forces continue to destroy our democracy. Or we can come together and embark to save our democracy.
The crisis of liberal democracy
Our country has long been governed according to a liberal democratic system that we inherited from our colonial past. It must be that the social and political crises, which have brought us to the present revolutionary situation, have their roots in this system. Our social and political crises are products of the dysfunctions and bankruptcy of liberal democracy.
Liberal democracy is faulty because it stresses individual liberty, gives primacy to free markets and is content with formal democracy including formal equality before the law. It believes that leaving the individuals free to pursue their respective happiness will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It puts its faith in the markets and the ‘rule of law’ to bring about the good society. To the liberal democrats, states should interfere as little as possible in the lives of individuals and leave capitalism to its own devices.
The ills of liberalism and its unbridled capitalism became apparent in Europe even in the early period of industrialization. These ills include dramatic inequalities, massive poverty, social dislocation, social fragmentation and rampant individualism.
In our country where economic disparities are great, our liberal democracy has led to the wealthy few making the democratic processes, including the legal system and the entire political system, their tools in promoting and safeguarding their economic and political interests.
Liberal democracy created our decadent political system that is characterized by lack of authentic politics and the dominance of opportunistic and selfish politicians. Corruption and inefficiency are two of the worst ills of this political system. This political system is captive to the wealthy few who direct the decisions of the state away from the pursuit of the common good and toward favoring their selfish interests. In this system, our political leaders and the wealthy few prevent the emergence of an autonomous and sufficiently strong developmentalist state.
Our peculiar brand of liberal democracy is also responsible for our backward economy that keeps many of our people impoverished, without means to live decently. Content with the profits they extract from export agriculture based on feudal or backward agrarian capitalist land tenure of from other primary industries like logging and mining, our wealthy few and political leaders failed to pursue genuine industrialization as there was no incentive for them to do so. They also blocked agrarian reform, thus stunting the growth of the domestic market for the products of industry. Our liberal democracy engendered bureaucrat and monopoly capitalism that has kept our economy backward and uncompetitive.
Liberal democracy brings freedom and the greatest good for the few in our society while majority of our people languish in poverty and powerlessness. Individualism and inequalities prevent liberal democracy from becoming democracy for all.
Our people are tired of this kind of democracy. As clear as they stand for democracy, they desire a movement away from democracy that is real only for the few.
The social democratic alternative
In the face of our present situation, we invite you to present to consider our alternative to the existing social regime.
Social democracy is our alternative to liberalism.
Champions. Many consider social democracy as the most successful ideology and movement of the 20th century, crediting the application of its values and principles for the most prosperous and harmonious period in European history. Political parties and leaders who champion or subscribe to social democracy have built some of the most progressive and livable societies in the world, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Spain, Canada, Australia and, close to home, Singapore. The successes of social democracy in these societies provide inspiration and hope in the possibility of a better future for our own society.
Objective. The goal of social democracy is to make democracy work for and be meaningful to all by building an affluent society that cares for all of its members and leaves no one. A society founded on social democracy secures the dignity of everyone and provides each one the opportunities to live a good life. Because everyone is cared for, everyone has a stake in the future of this society and this society is cohesive and strong.
Core values. Social democrats believe that such a society is built on the values of freedom, justice and solidarity.
Freedom means the possibility of taking charge of one’s own life and realizing one’s highest potentials. It is based on human dignity and it requires securing the universal basic human rights of the individuals. At the very least, it is society’s responsibility to ensure that every person has the minimum requirements to live in dignity and in freedom. Individual freedom, however, is not absolute. It ends where it impairs the freedom or violates the human rights of others.
Equality refers to the recognition of equal dignity of all persons, regardless of gender, color or beliefs. Another name for this is social justice. Formal equality is not enough. Everyone having the capacity to assert his or her rights is more important. Equality requires society to provide equal freedom and equal chances in life to every person. It calls for fair distribution of property, income and power. It also demands the rejection of any form of discrimination.
Solidarity is the premise that we are here for each other. We shape our lives in one community. We can only have equal freedom and equal chances in life by guaranteeing each other’s rights and looking after each other. We can only improve our society by working together for the common good. Solidarity finds expression in the Filipinos’ “bayanihan spirit” in times of common adversity. It is also expressed in the strong sense of patriotism that banded Filipinos against common enemies in the past or for a great undertaking like the display of people power on EDSA in 1986 and 2001.
Principles and paths. Social democracy asserts the ‘primacy of politics and social cooperation.’ Its vision of society will be achieved through the collective struggle of human beings united by common commitment to the social democratic values.
Though born in response to the ills of unrestrained capitalism, social democracy recognizes the ability of the market to create wealth upon which the good society can be built. Thus, it is committed to acquisition of political power to harness the powers of market forces in the service of the common good, while at the same time protecting the citizenry from their destructive effects. Social democracy asserts social control, through the state, over market forces.
In a social democratic society, the state does not only manage market forces for the common good, it also takes the role of members of families and local communities in pre-capitalist times—that of taking care of people when they could not help themselves. Social democratic government strives to guarantee the basic subsistence of every citizen rather than leaving him or her to his position in the market place. At the very least, social democratic societies ensure fair chances in life to everyone.
Among the core policies and programs that social democrats work for are full employment, universal access to quality education, adequate health care, social security in old age and contingency situations, possibly including unemployment, progressive taxation and redistributive programs.
The implementation of social democracy calls for a state that is strong, patriotic and developmentalist. It requires that the state be liberated from those who possess wealth or those who work for their interests rather than for the common good. It also calls for a state enjoying the support of a patriotic, organized and clearly democratic citizenry.
Social democrats are committed to acquiring political power the way they intend to govern—in partnership with the organized democratic progressive elements of the basic sectors and key guardians of Philippine democracy.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Towards Social Democracy
Towards social democracy
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Now that a transition to democracy has taken place, we need to start preparing for the next step forward: a progressive, enlightened and humane society. It is possible for societies afflicted by widespread poverty and squalor to surmount their dreary and dismal conditions without going to war and looting other countries. Through hard work, dedicated leadership and intelligent policies and planning spectacular success can be achieved.
I am particularly thinking of Sweden, where I lived for nearly 35 years, and Singapore, where I am currently based, as examples of successful transformation from sprawling poverty to enviable standards of living.
At the beginning of the 19th century, Sweden was one of the poorest nations, in the farthest corner of northern Europe. So poor was it that nearly half its population migrated to the United States. Today this nation of some nine million is a global leader in high-tech industries and the service sector, and its Volvo and Saab vehicles are world-renowned. It is also the fairest society on earth when it comes to the basic needs for a secure and dignified life. When Singapore became independent in 1965, it was infested with Chinese secret societies that ran gambling dens, brothels and the drugs trade.
Today this nation of barely 4.5 million is the 17th richest in the world. It provides excellent services and facilities for trade and commerce, having initially made its mark in high-tech manufacturing and industrial production. In both these countries a strong political party -- the Sveriges Socialdemokratiska Arbetareparti (Swedish Social Democratic Workers' Party) and the People's Action Party, respectively -- led the nation forward and used state power to create conditions for economic growth and rising standards of living.
Swedish social democracy has historically been more attuned to egalitarian reforms, while in Singapore the change from erstwhile Fabian socialism to free-market principles has not meant that the state has abdicated its duty to provide cheap and good housing to citizens, excellent education and vocational training and an extremely safe and secure social milieu free from violent crime and drugs. As its economy grows, Singapore is expanding subsidised healthcare facilities for those who really need help.
Historically, social democracy was a democratic tendency within the broad socialist movement that emerged in 19th-century western Europe that, in contrast to orthodox Marxism-Leninism's theory of armed revolution and one-party rule, believed in free elections and an open society.
Equally, in contrast to liberal democracy's celebration of unbridled laissez-faire capitalism and human egotism, social democracy always believed in a strong and active state with a strong social policy as a complement to the human need for solidarity and sympathy. The question now is: how should Pakistan be transformed into a social democratic polity? There is no denying that we need a party that can organise mass support behind a social democratic programme for change and transformation. The PPP would probably come closest to the description of a social democratic party. The late Ms Bhutto had revived the original PPP commitment to roti, kapra aur makan (food, clothing and shelter).
However, it is not clear to what extent this goal is still dear to her successors. Another problem is that a social democratic party must rely primarily on the working people and intellectuals, while the PPP is dominated by landlords and other conservative sections of society, especially in Sindh.On the other hand, the PML-N corresponds more to a liberal democratic type of party but only in economic terms of a free market. After all, liberal democracy is not only about free capitalism: it is also committed strongly to the freedom of religion and conscience, thought and opinion. Historically Nawaz Sharif has a bad record on these emancipatory aspects of liberal democracy.
Under the circumstances, one can either work towards a new party of the working people and concerned intellectuals, which holds regular elections not only at the level of state and government but also within the party or, more preferably, begin a concerted and focused campaign to propagate social democratic ideals and principles. In the longer run, if the need for establishing a new party gains wide support then one can move towards that goal.
In this regard, it is important that we initially imitate the Singapore model instead of the Swedish one, because without economic growth and wealth egalitarian reforms become hollow and are reduced merely to slogans. Ownership of private property should be given proper legal coverage, let trade and commerce flourish and people encouraged to set up businesses. But the taxation system should be structured in a way that those who use the facilities of the state -- its laws, rules and regulations, bureaucratic machinery, international contacts and facilities and other such services -- pay more tax than those who do not. In such a tax regime notorious political-industrial families and other scoundrels would have no chance of tax evasion and there will be no room for contrived defaulters of bank loans. Also, the vast economic holdings and interests of the military should be brought under the jurisdiction of our tax system. On the other hand, spending on better education and vocational training would be considered an investment rather than a favour to the poor.
We need to encourage the growth of a culture of meritocracy, but with provisions for the poor and historically-disadvantaged to get out of the rut of crushing poverty and move forward. A two-pronged developmental strategy is needed that puts a high premium on hard work and talent while simultaneously developing a level playing field by undermining structures which sustain parasitical landlords and tribal chiefs.
The state must ensure the following minimum to all people: clean drinking water, a functioning sanitation system including proper toilets, reasonable housing and a basic health system and transparent government. Indeed, philanthropy and charity will have a major role to play to make Pakistan a fair and caring society, but overall societal management must rest with the state and the elected representatives of the people.
The writer is a professor of political science and a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore. Email: isasia@nus.edu.sg
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Now that a transition to democracy has taken place, we need to start preparing for the next step forward: a progressive, enlightened and humane society. It is possible for societies afflicted by widespread poverty and squalor to surmount their dreary and dismal conditions without going to war and looting other countries. Through hard work, dedicated leadership and intelligent policies and planning spectacular success can be achieved.
I am particularly thinking of Sweden, where I lived for nearly 35 years, and Singapore, where I am currently based, as examples of successful transformation from sprawling poverty to enviable standards of living.
At the beginning of the 19th century, Sweden was one of the poorest nations, in the farthest corner of northern Europe. So poor was it that nearly half its population migrated to the United States. Today this nation of some nine million is a global leader in high-tech industries and the service sector, and its Volvo and Saab vehicles are world-renowned. It is also the fairest society on earth when it comes to the basic needs for a secure and dignified life. When Singapore became independent in 1965, it was infested with Chinese secret societies that ran gambling dens, brothels and the drugs trade.
Today this nation of barely 4.5 million is the 17th richest in the world. It provides excellent services and facilities for trade and commerce, having initially made its mark in high-tech manufacturing and industrial production. In both these countries a strong political party -- the Sveriges Socialdemokratiska Arbetareparti (Swedish Social Democratic Workers' Party) and the People's Action Party, respectively -- led the nation forward and used state power to create conditions for economic growth and rising standards of living.
Swedish social democracy has historically been more attuned to egalitarian reforms, while in Singapore the change from erstwhile Fabian socialism to free-market principles has not meant that the state has abdicated its duty to provide cheap and good housing to citizens, excellent education and vocational training and an extremely safe and secure social milieu free from violent crime and drugs. As its economy grows, Singapore is expanding subsidised healthcare facilities for those who really need help.
Historically, social democracy was a democratic tendency within the broad socialist movement that emerged in 19th-century western Europe that, in contrast to orthodox Marxism-Leninism's theory of armed revolution and one-party rule, believed in free elections and an open society.
Equally, in contrast to liberal democracy's celebration of unbridled laissez-faire capitalism and human egotism, social democracy always believed in a strong and active state with a strong social policy as a complement to the human need for solidarity and sympathy. The question now is: how should Pakistan be transformed into a social democratic polity? There is no denying that we need a party that can organise mass support behind a social democratic programme for change and transformation. The PPP would probably come closest to the description of a social democratic party. The late Ms Bhutto had revived the original PPP commitment to roti, kapra aur makan (food, clothing and shelter).
However, it is not clear to what extent this goal is still dear to her successors. Another problem is that a social democratic party must rely primarily on the working people and intellectuals, while the PPP is dominated by landlords and other conservative sections of society, especially in Sindh.On the other hand, the PML-N corresponds more to a liberal democratic type of party but only in economic terms of a free market. After all, liberal democracy is not only about free capitalism: it is also committed strongly to the freedom of religion and conscience, thought and opinion. Historically Nawaz Sharif has a bad record on these emancipatory aspects of liberal democracy.
Under the circumstances, one can either work towards a new party of the working people and concerned intellectuals, which holds regular elections not only at the level of state and government but also within the party or, more preferably, begin a concerted and focused campaign to propagate social democratic ideals and principles. In the longer run, if the need for establishing a new party gains wide support then one can move towards that goal.
In this regard, it is important that we initially imitate the Singapore model instead of the Swedish one, because without economic growth and wealth egalitarian reforms become hollow and are reduced merely to slogans. Ownership of private property should be given proper legal coverage, let trade and commerce flourish and people encouraged to set up businesses. But the taxation system should be structured in a way that those who use the facilities of the state -- its laws, rules and regulations, bureaucratic machinery, international contacts and facilities and other such services -- pay more tax than those who do not. In such a tax regime notorious political-industrial families and other scoundrels would have no chance of tax evasion and there will be no room for contrived defaulters of bank loans. Also, the vast economic holdings and interests of the military should be brought under the jurisdiction of our tax system. On the other hand, spending on better education and vocational training would be considered an investment rather than a favour to the poor.
We need to encourage the growth of a culture of meritocracy, but with provisions for the poor and historically-disadvantaged to get out of the rut of crushing poverty and move forward. A two-pronged developmental strategy is needed that puts a high premium on hard work and talent while simultaneously developing a level playing field by undermining structures which sustain parasitical landlords and tribal chiefs.
The state must ensure the following minimum to all people: clean drinking water, a functioning sanitation system including proper toilets, reasonable housing and a basic health system and transparent government. Indeed, philanthropy and charity will have a major role to play to make Pakistan a fair and caring society, but overall societal management must rest with the state and the elected representatives of the people.
The writer is a professor of political science and a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore. Email: isasia@nus.edu.sg
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Social Democracy for the Philippines Today
Social democracy for the Philippines today
24 September 2008
We need a change of system,
not just a change of leaders.
It is time for social democracy.
These past four years has seen an unending series of scandals involving all branches of government and politicians of both the administration and the opposition. At the same time, many politicians have revealed their opportunism evident in their collaboration with armed extremists and their war-inducing vilification of government efforts to arrive at a satisfactory peace agreement with predominantly Muslim insurgent groups. These are actually the latest and relatively severe symptoms of the decay of a liberal democracy dominated by traditional politicians. They manifest the ripening of the evils of liberal democracy in a pre-existing situation of grave social inequality.
Liberal democracy, while theoretically promoting formal equality under the law, does not promote equal social power, so that the already powerful gain all the more power, because they have the economic and intellectual means and social connections to use the law to their own advantage.
Liberal democracy in the Philippines amounts to “elite politics:” the participation of and advantage to the economically wealthy and socially prominent families and individuals or their media allies.
In this dysfunctional liberal democratic dispensation, we now see laid bare before our eyes the ascendancy of arrogant and manipulative media at the service of vested interests.
We are outraged at how prone traditional politicians are to ally with anti-democratic elements of the Marxist-Leninist extreme Left and the fascist extreme Right, for their own selfish agenda, and how eager they are to ride on the ignorance of the public to acquire an undeserved popularity by misrepresenting and maligning government efforts to arrive at a reasonable peace agreement with predominantly Muslim insurgent groups. All this at the cost of the lives and the bodily integrity of our soldiers, police officers, and patriotic public officials and ordinary citizens, and severe suffering for hundreds of thousands of evacuees and other displaced persons.
We grieve at the breakdown of our basic securities as a nation—defense, internal security, food, water, energy, environment.
We gaze with alarm at the decline in livelihood, education, health, security, peace and order, the increase of poverty in absolute terms, the sense of hopelessness of many of our people, after two People Power uprisings rendered useless by the nefarious ways of traditional politicians acting within the framework of liberal democracy.
It is indeed time for change.
It is time for social democracy.
It is time for social democracy—a society in which formal equality under the law is made life-giving by the promotion of real equality in social power, so that all citizens can participate on equal terms in the burdens, benefits and governance of societal life.
It is time for social democracy—a society with sufficient participation in if not control of governance by the majority of our nation, composed of the working masses of farmers, fisherfolk, industrial labor, small businesspersons and professionals, and ministers of the faith communities.
Social democracy strives for a society ably defended and nurtured by the pillars of democracy—democratic political and civic organizations and social movements, the Christian Churches, the Muslim community, the military, the police, academe, business, and responsible media.
Social democracy promotes a society whose leaders and citizens effectively safeguard and promote, with their lives, their honor, and their intellectual endowments and material possessions, our basic securities as a nation—defense, internal security, food, water, energy, environment.
Social democrats, by their theory and practice, help provide a model for a society that clearly and militantly combats anti-democratic elements by a spirit and with measures that are committed to human rights and international humanitarian law.
Social democrats build a society that is able to give its youth the means to achieve a happy and prosperous future.
Social democrats methodically construct a society that cares equally for all.
In the Philippines, what specific principles and programs do social democrats advocate in order to make social democracy a reality in our country?
Philippine social democrats advocate specific models for the liberating transformation of the main systems of society—the economy, politics, and culture:
§ a socially equitable and sustainable market economy
§ socially equitable by appropriate government intervention to protect and improve the income, safety, health, and welfare of the citizens, especially the working people
§ sustainable by safeguards for the integrity and health of the natural environment
§ a participative and formative democracy
§ through substantial participation of the citizens in social discussion and governance
§ through systematic formation of the citizenry in the values, knowledge and skills for effectively engaging in civil life and public affairs
§ an authentically humanist culture
§ interfaith in basis
§ formally expressed in civil ethics
§ favourable to moral renewal through work for the common good and the promotion of virtues—personal, domestic and civic—especially patriotism, honesty, and diligence
Philippine social democrats call on all fellow citizens to join in specific tasks for nation-building. Some of the more important of these tasks can be grouped as follows:
(1) renewing and strengthening the state
(2) effecting fundamental reforms in the political system and the structure of government
(3) promoting our basic securities as a nation—defense, internal security, food, water, energy, environment
(4) alleviating and eventually eliminating poverty
Renewing and strengthening the state entails the following:
§ struggling against corruption in the executive branch, the legislature, the judiciary, and the constitutional commissions, through external legal and administrative deterrents and internal reform initiatives
§ rooting out inefficiency by facilitating the early retirement of inefficient government staff and the recruitment of efficient ones through adequate monetary and other compensation
§ remedying the lack of revenues by progressive taxation and by conscientious collection of taxes
The urgent political reforms include
§ electoral reform: drastic cleaning up and restructuring of the Commission on Elections, appropriate automation of the electoral process
§ governmental reform: shift to unicameral parliamentary system
§ reform of the bureaucracy: professionalization of the bureaucracy through attrition of the incompetent and inefficient and promotion and recruitment of the skilled and efficient
Promoting our basic securities as a nation entails
§ building up the defense and internal security capability of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), in large part through the vigorous promotion of a domestic defense industry
§ bringing up to standards the capacity of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and related public safety institutions to protect and promote law enforcement and public safety and order
§ resolutely carrying out the Enhanced National Internal Security Plan (ENISP), with its five offensives and three programs
§ identifying, wisely using, and renewing or conserving our strategic plant, animal, soil, aquatic, mineral, and energy reserves
Alleviating and eventually eliminating poverty involves providing the citizenry with providing dignified and well-remunerated livelihood, improving their health, and giving them access to quality education.
The following are necessary to provide the citizenry with dignified and well-remunerated livelihood:
§ appropriate agrarian reform and rural development through industrialization
§ balanced economic development: agriculture, manufacturing, services;
§ rural and urban industrialization
§ encourage and assist in the establishment and operation of worker-owned enterprises in multiplier industries and programs, such as the following
§ housing, especially for the urban and rural poor and the lower middle class
§ infrastructure and equipment for transportation, especially rail transport
§ agro-industry, especially coconut-based multiproduct industrial facilities
§ massive effort to set up adequate infrastructure
§ technical help for production, postproduction, marketing, research
Improving the health of the citizenry entails the improving health programs and facilities directed to the following priorities:
§ sanitation and public health: safe water, nutrition, vaccination, health education
§ adequate network of facilities for health care, especially primary and secondary facilities
§ values-based responsible parenthood
§ adequate shelter
Giving the citizenry access to quality education involves the following:
§ appropriate programs, textbooks, and teaching aids, especially for literacy, numeracy, science, and civics
§ rapidly overcoming the deficit in school buildings, classrooms and laboratories
§ massive program in teacher training, especially in English, mathematics, science, and civics
These urgent objectives can best be realized with a government based on the principles and practices of social democracy.
It is time for social democracy.
It is time for social democracy in the Philippines.
Itatag ang lipunang pantay ang paglingap sa lahat !
Itatag ang sanlipunang demokrasya !
24 September 2008
We need a change of system,
not just a change of leaders.
It is time for social democracy.
These past four years has seen an unending series of scandals involving all branches of government and politicians of both the administration and the opposition. At the same time, many politicians have revealed their opportunism evident in their collaboration with armed extremists and their war-inducing vilification of government efforts to arrive at a satisfactory peace agreement with predominantly Muslim insurgent groups. These are actually the latest and relatively severe symptoms of the decay of a liberal democracy dominated by traditional politicians. They manifest the ripening of the evils of liberal democracy in a pre-existing situation of grave social inequality.
Liberal democracy, while theoretically promoting formal equality under the law, does not promote equal social power, so that the already powerful gain all the more power, because they have the economic and intellectual means and social connections to use the law to their own advantage.
Liberal democracy in the Philippines amounts to “elite politics:” the participation of and advantage to the economically wealthy and socially prominent families and individuals or their media allies.
In this dysfunctional liberal democratic dispensation, we now see laid bare before our eyes the ascendancy of arrogant and manipulative media at the service of vested interests.
We are outraged at how prone traditional politicians are to ally with anti-democratic elements of the Marxist-Leninist extreme Left and the fascist extreme Right, for their own selfish agenda, and how eager they are to ride on the ignorance of the public to acquire an undeserved popularity by misrepresenting and maligning government efforts to arrive at a reasonable peace agreement with predominantly Muslim insurgent groups. All this at the cost of the lives and the bodily integrity of our soldiers, police officers, and patriotic public officials and ordinary citizens, and severe suffering for hundreds of thousands of evacuees and other displaced persons.
We grieve at the breakdown of our basic securities as a nation—defense, internal security, food, water, energy, environment.
We gaze with alarm at the decline in livelihood, education, health, security, peace and order, the increase of poverty in absolute terms, the sense of hopelessness of many of our people, after two People Power uprisings rendered useless by the nefarious ways of traditional politicians acting within the framework of liberal democracy.
It is indeed time for change.
It is time for social democracy.
It is time for social democracy—a society in which formal equality under the law is made life-giving by the promotion of real equality in social power, so that all citizens can participate on equal terms in the burdens, benefits and governance of societal life.
It is time for social democracy—a society with sufficient participation in if not control of governance by the majority of our nation, composed of the working masses of farmers, fisherfolk, industrial labor, small businesspersons and professionals, and ministers of the faith communities.
Social democracy strives for a society ably defended and nurtured by the pillars of democracy—democratic political and civic organizations and social movements, the Christian Churches, the Muslim community, the military, the police, academe, business, and responsible media.
Social democracy promotes a society whose leaders and citizens effectively safeguard and promote, with their lives, their honor, and their intellectual endowments and material possessions, our basic securities as a nation—defense, internal security, food, water, energy, environment.
Social democrats, by their theory and practice, help provide a model for a society that clearly and militantly combats anti-democratic elements by a spirit and with measures that are committed to human rights and international humanitarian law.
Social democrats build a society that is able to give its youth the means to achieve a happy and prosperous future.
Social democrats methodically construct a society that cares equally for all.
In the Philippines, what specific principles and programs do social democrats advocate in order to make social democracy a reality in our country?
Philippine social democrats advocate specific models for the liberating transformation of the main systems of society—the economy, politics, and culture:
§ a socially equitable and sustainable market economy
§ socially equitable by appropriate government intervention to protect and improve the income, safety, health, and welfare of the citizens, especially the working people
§ sustainable by safeguards for the integrity and health of the natural environment
§ a participative and formative democracy
§ through substantial participation of the citizens in social discussion and governance
§ through systematic formation of the citizenry in the values, knowledge and skills for effectively engaging in civil life and public affairs
§ an authentically humanist culture
§ interfaith in basis
§ formally expressed in civil ethics
§ favourable to moral renewal through work for the common good and the promotion of virtues—personal, domestic and civic—especially patriotism, honesty, and diligence
Philippine social democrats call on all fellow citizens to join in specific tasks for nation-building. Some of the more important of these tasks can be grouped as follows:
(1) renewing and strengthening the state
(2) effecting fundamental reforms in the political system and the structure of government
(3) promoting our basic securities as a nation—defense, internal security, food, water, energy, environment
(4) alleviating and eventually eliminating poverty
Renewing and strengthening the state entails the following:
§ struggling against corruption in the executive branch, the legislature, the judiciary, and the constitutional commissions, through external legal and administrative deterrents and internal reform initiatives
§ rooting out inefficiency by facilitating the early retirement of inefficient government staff and the recruitment of efficient ones through adequate monetary and other compensation
§ remedying the lack of revenues by progressive taxation and by conscientious collection of taxes
The urgent political reforms include
§ electoral reform: drastic cleaning up and restructuring of the Commission on Elections, appropriate automation of the electoral process
§ governmental reform: shift to unicameral parliamentary system
§ reform of the bureaucracy: professionalization of the bureaucracy through attrition of the incompetent and inefficient and promotion and recruitment of the skilled and efficient
Promoting our basic securities as a nation entails
§ building up the defense and internal security capability of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), in large part through the vigorous promotion of a domestic defense industry
§ bringing up to standards the capacity of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and related public safety institutions to protect and promote law enforcement and public safety and order
§ resolutely carrying out the Enhanced National Internal Security Plan (ENISP), with its five offensives and three programs
§ identifying, wisely using, and renewing or conserving our strategic plant, animal, soil, aquatic, mineral, and energy reserves
Alleviating and eventually eliminating poverty involves providing the citizenry with providing dignified and well-remunerated livelihood, improving their health, and giving them access to quality education.
The following are necessary to provide the citizenry with dignified and well-remunerated livelihood:
§ appropriate agrarian reform and rural development through industrialization
§ balanced economic development: agriculture, manufacturing, services;
§ rural and urban industrialization
§ encourage and assist in the establishment and operation of worker-owned enterprises in multiplier industries and programs, such as the following
§ housing, especially for the urban and rural poor and the lower middle class
§ infrastructure and equipment for transportation, especially rail transport
§ agro-industry, especially coconut-based multiproduct industrial facilities
§ massive effort to set up adequate infrastructure
§ technical help for production, postproduction, marketing, research
Improving the health of the citizenry entails the improving health programs and facilities directed to the following priorities:
§ sanitation and public health: safe water, nutrition, vaccination, health education
§ adequate network of facilities for health care, especially primary and secondary facilities
§ values-based responsible parenthood
§ adequate shelter
Giving the citizenry access to quality education involves the following:
§ appropriate programs, textbooks, and teaching aids, especially for literacy, numeracy, science, and civics
§ rapidly overcoming the deficit in school buildings, classrooms and laboratories
§ massive program in teacher training, especially in English, mathematics, science, and civics
These urgent objectives can best be realized with a government based on the principles and practices of social democracy.
It is time for social democracy.
It is time for social democracy in the Philippines.
Itatag ang lipunang pantay ang paglingap sa lahat !
Itatag ang sanlipunang demokrasya !
Monday, February 16, 2009
Remembering Olof Palme, A Social Democrat
Feb 28, 2006 at 02:04 o\clock
Twenty years ago today: the assassination of Olof Palme
by: socialdemocracynow
Today, February 28, 2006, social democrats all over the world mourn the assassination of Olof Palme, the last of the great Swedish social democrats and probably the last real social democrat ever to hold the top job in any country until the unexpected and still astonishing rise of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.Do we know who murdered Palme? Perhaps we do. A petty criminal and longtime drug abuser, Christer Petterson, who died in 2004, confessed to the murder in 2001. He was identified as the assassin by Palme's wife, Lisbet, who was herself shot during the attack. Then, on February 24, 2006, Pettersson's close friend Roger Östlund claimed on his death bed that he had actually seen Pettersson shoot Olof Palme. (SOURCE)
Two motives have been offered for the murder. In 2001, Petterson's friend, Swedish journalist Gert Fylking, told the BBC that Petterson had had no grievance against Palme personally, but that while he was in prison, he had met someone who had. So after being released from prison he murdered Palme to avenge the other man's grievance. (SOURCE)
A marginally more plausible motive surfaced this week, when Östlund claimed that Petterson had mistaken Palme for a drug dealer: 'Östlund, who is now dying in hospital, says that Palme was simply the victim of mistaken identity - the real target was amphetamine dealer Sigge Cedergren, whom they had intended to attack as part of a turf war among drug dealers. Östlund says he and another man had planned to attack Cedergren together with Pettersson, but did not know that Pettersson had a gun.
Friends of Östlund told Expressen that he has not spoken out before because he was afraid of being killed.' (SOURCE)Although it's always nice to have a perp, a great deal about the assassination still doesn't make sense. Although he had murdered someone before - in 1970 - there is no evidence Pettersson ever owned a gun.
The 1970 murder weapon had been a bayonet and in the other violent incidents in which he was involved, a knife had been used. Östlund says that he did not even know that night that Pettersson had had a gun. The obvious questions, therefore, are: how did Pettersson get the gun? And are either motives plausible? Superficially, this looks a textbook case of assassination by a 'lone nut,' and perhaps it was always meant to look this way. But can we really believe that Pettersson just happened to be looking to kill a drug dealer at the exact same time and in the exact same location that the Swedish prime minister happened to be out without his bodyguard? And on a cold (minus 7 degrees) February night? Why would Petterson have expected to see Cedergren on the street at around midnight on such a cold night?The fact that Pettersen had a gun on him and fastened on Palme as his victim suggests the possibility that he was somehow manipulated into committing the crime.
There is overwhelming evidence that something unusual was afoot on the night Palme was murdered. Palme's behaviour was by no means normal that night, leading to speculation that he was supposed to meet somebody, and there is also overwhelming evidence of police complicity in the crime. (SOURCE)
At the time Palme was murdered, he was a very unpopular figure indeed with three interlocking sets of actors: the governments of South Africa, Israel and the United States. The same nexus of rightwing South Africans which was linked to the assassination in 1996 just happens to have included in its web Jack Abramoff, the Republican party operative currently embroiled in corruption scandals, whose connections back in the 80s went from South Africa to both the Reagan White House and Israel. It would seem a fair bet that Abramoff knows why Palme was killed: after all, he was the intermediary figure between Palme's three main groups of enemies.
There is something all too convenient about Palme's assassination that makes me sceptical about the new theory that he was just a victim of mistaken identity. Not only was Palme a forthright opponent of apartheid, he was pro-Palestinian and closely associated with 'the leading personalities of the non-aligned countries, for example Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.' (SOURCE) Isn't it interesting that he was assassinated less than eighteen months after Indira Gandhi? With the deaths of Indira Gandhi and Olof Palme, two of the most important leaders of the non-aligned world were removed from the scene: it's not hard to see that the decapitation of the non-aligned movement fitted in very nicely with the interests of the Reagan White House, then absorbed by Reagan's obsession with cranking up the Cold War.What's more, by the 1980s, with Thatcherism and Reaganism in the ascendant, social democracy was being roundly dismissed by mainstream commentators as passé. Yet Palme was one of the leaders of 'the so-called Socialist International, consisting of Social Democratic Parties, which underwent a resurgence from the early 1970s onwards, engineered above all by the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, the Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky' and himself. (SOURCE)
That the 1980s saw the eclipse of social democracy and the invasion of neoliberal economic lunacy was in no small part due to the loss of such a formidable social democrat as Palme.Are there reasons to suspect American involvement in the Palme assassination? Yes, if you consider former CIA agents reliable sources. First, according to former CIA agent Gene 'Chip' Tatum, Palme 'was murdered on behalf of a hidden organization, the OSG, which had a certain colonel Oliver North in a leading role. North's ultimate superior was Vice President George Bush.' In early 1999, a Swedish-American investigator obtained a snippet from a 1997 interview in which Tatum 'disclosed how Palme had been set up and murdered.' (SOURCE) A short part of the interview can be heard here. That Tatum disappeared in 2000 and hasn't been heard of since seems an indication that after he left the CIA he made too many inconvenient disclosures for his own good.Second, an Italian investigation has established that the matter was related to Iran-Contra:'In late June-early July ... interviews with [former CIA agents Richard Brenneke and Ibrahim Razin] were broadcast in four parts by [Italian state television] TG1. The most explosive element of what they said, was that three days before Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme was assassinated, Licio Gelli, Grand Master of the Propaganda 2 (P-2) Freemasonic lodge, had sent a telegram to Republican Party representative Philip Guarino, an intimate of George [H. W.] Bush, announcing that "the Swedish tree will be felled.'' In his sequence, Razin claimed that the text of the telegram exists in the archives of the National Security Agency, and that the FBI has opened an investigation into this. Razin added that he knew of the existence of such a telegram from a high representative of the American mafia, and that Palme was assassinated because he knew about the illegal weapons trade in connection with the Iran-Iraq war. As Brenneke put it, Palme had become a "fly in the ointment'' for those responsible for the dirty doings.' (SOURCE)
The latest revelations about the Palme assassination therefore do not close the book on the case by any means. It is the question of the murder weapon that ensures that the case still cannot be regarded as solved. Although Petterson confessed to the crime and has furnished at least two motives for doing so, he has never said anything about the gun: where it came from, why he happened to have it on him that night, and what happened to it afterwards. This implies that at the very least a second person was involved - someone who supplied the weapon, manipulated his movements that night, and who disposed of the weapon afterwards.
The only logical reason why Petterson never addressed the matter of the gun is that he refused to implicate one or more other people.If Östlund was really there - and I don't know of any witnesses who say they saw a second person lurking around with the gunman - he surely would have to know the answers to these questions.
Isn't it a little too convenient that Östlund says he didn't know anything about the gun? So let's consider the possibility that while Östlund was dying, persons unknown approached him and made it worth his while to issue a bogus statement confirming that he had seen Petterson shoot Palme, thereby confirming Petterson's earlier confession. This would be a perfect way to shut down suspicions of a conspiracy, wouldn't it? Most people would be inclined to say, well, that clinches the matter! So while I am convinced that Petersson was the gunman, I strongly question whether Östlund's deathbed confession should be accepted at face value. Its timing too - just days before the twentieth anniversary of the tragedy - is also a little hard to swallow.
Further reading: Trowbridge Ford, "Assassination of Sweden's Olof Palme (Operation Tree)" here, and Dean Andromidas, "The Palme Murder" here.
Permalink
Twenty years ago today: the assassination of Olof Palme
by: socialdemocracynow
Today, February 28, 2006, social democrats all over the world mourn the assassination of Olof Palme, the last of the great Swedish social democrats and probably the last real social democrat ever to hold the top job in any country until the unexpected and still astonishing rise of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.Do we know who murdered Palme? Perhaps we do. A petty criminal and longtime drug abuser, Christer Petterson, who died in 2004, confessed to the murder in 2001. He was identified as the assassin by Palme's wife, Lisbet, who was herself shot during the attack. Then, on February 24, 2006, Pettersson's close friend Roger Östlund claimed on his death bed that he had actually seen Pettersson shoot Olof Palme. (SOURCE)
Two motives have been offered for the murder. In 2001, Petterson's friend, Swedish journalist Gert Fylking, told the BBC that Petterson had had no grievance against Palme personally, but that while he was in prison, he had met someone who had. So after being released from prison he murdered Palme to avenge the other man's grievance. (SOURCE)
A marginally more plausible motive surfaced this week, when Östlund claimed that Petterson had mistaken Palme for a drug dealer: 'Östlund, who is now dying in hospital, says that Palme was simply the victim of mistaken identity - the real target was amphetamine dealer Sigge Cedergren, whom they had intended to attack as part of a turf war among drug dealers. Östlund says he and another man had planned to attack Cedergren together with Pettersson, but did not know that Pettersson had a gun.
Friends of Östlund told Expressen that he has not spoken out before because he was afraid of being killed.' (SOURCE)Although it's always nice to have a perp, a great deal about the assassination still doesn't make sense. Although he had murdered someone before - in 1970 - there is no evidence Pettersson ever owned a gun.
The 1970 murder weapon had been a bayonet and in the other violent incidents in which he was involved, a knife had been used. Östlund says that he did not even know that night that Pettersson had had a gun. The obvious questions, therefore, are: how did Pettersson get the gun? And are either motives plausible? Superficially, this looks a textbook case of assassination by a 'lone nut,' and perhaps it was always meant to look this way. But can we really believe that Pettersson just happened to be looking to kill a drug dealer at the exact same time and in the exact same location that the Swedish prime minister happened to be out without his bodyguard? And on a cold (minus 7 degrees) February night? Why would Petterson have expected to see Cedergren on the street at around midnight on such a cold night?The fact that Pettersen had a gun on him and fastened on Palme as his victim suggests the possibility that he was somehow manipulated into committing the crime.
There is overwhelming evidence that something unusual was afoot on the night Palme was murdered. Palme's behaviour was by no means normal that night, leading to speculation that he was supposed to meet somebody, and there is also overwhelming evidence of police complicity in the crime. (SOURCE)
At the time Palme was murdered, he was a very unpopular figure indeed with three interlocking sets of actors: the governments of South Africa, Israel and the United States. The same nexus of rightwing South Africans which was linked to the assassination in 1996 just happens to have included in its web Jack Abramoff, the Republican party operative currently embroiled in corruption scandals, whose connections back in the 80s went from South Africa to both the Reagan White House and Israel. It would seem a fair bet that Abramoff knows why Palme was killed: after all, he was the intermediary figure between Palme's three main groups of enemies.
There is something all too convenient about Palme's assassination that makes me sceptical about the new theory that he was just a victim of mistaken identity. Not only was Palme a forthright opponent of apartheid, he was pro-Palestinian and closely associated with 'the leading personalities of the non-aligned countries, for example Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.' (SOURCE) Isn't it interesting that he was assassinated less than eighteen months after Indira Gandhi? With the deaths of Indira Gandhi and Olof Palme, two of the most important leaders of the non-aligned world were removed from the scene: it's not hard to see that the decapitation of the non-aligned movement fitted in very nicely with the interests of the Reagan White House, then absorbed by Reagan's obsession with cranking up the Cold War.What's more, by the 1980s, with Thatcherism and Reaganism in the ascendant, social democracy was being roundly dismissed by mainstream commentators as passé. Yet Palme was one of the leaders of 'the so-called Socialist International, consisting of Social Democratic Parties, which underwent a resurgence from the early 1970s onwards, engineered above all by the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, the Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky' and himself. (SOURCE)
That the 1980s saw the eclipse of social democracy and the invasion of neoliberal economic lunacy was in no small part due to the loss of such a formidable social democrat as Palme.Are there reasons to suspect American involvement in the Palme assassination? Yes, if you consider former CIA agents reliable sources. First, according to former CIA agent Gene 'Chip' Tatum, Palme 'was murdered on behalf of a hidden organization, the OSG, which had a certain colonel Oliver North in a leading role. North's ultimate superior was Vice President George Bush.' In early 1999, a Swedish-American investigator obtained a snippet from a 1997 interview in which Tatum 'disclosed how Palme had been set up and murdered.' (SOURCE) A short part of the interview can be heard here. That Tatum disappeared in 2000 and hasn't been heard of since seems an indication that after he left the CIA he made too many inconvenient disclosures for his own good.Second, an Italian investigation has established that the matter was related to Iran-Contra:'In late June-early July ... interviews with [former CIA agents Richard Brenneke and Ibrahim Razin] were broadcast in four parts by [Italian state television] TG1. The most explosive element of what they said, was that three days before Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme was assassinated, Licio Gelli, Grand Master of the Propaganda 2 (P-2) Freemasonic lodge, had sent a telegram to Republican Party representative Philip Guarino, an intimate of George [H. W.] Bush, announcing that "the Swedish tree will be felled.'' In his sequence, Razin claimed that the text of the telegram exists in the archives of the National Security Agency, and that the FBI has opened an investigation into this. Razin added that he knew of the existence of such a telegram from a high representative of the American mafia, and that Palme was assassinated because he knew about the illegal weapons trade in connection with the Iran-Iraq war. As Brenneke put it, Palme had become a "fly in the ointment'' for those responsible for the dirty doings.' (SOURCE)
The latest revelations about the Palme assassination therefore do not close the book on the case by any means. It is the question of the murder weapon that ensures that the case still cannot be regarded as solved. Although Petterson confessed to the crime and has furnished at least two motives for doing so, he has never said anything about the gun: where it came from, why he happened to have it on him that night, and what happened to it afterwards. This implies that at the very least a second person was involved - someone who supplied the weapon, manipulated his movements that night, and who disposed of the weapon afterwards.
The only logical reason why Petterson never addressed the matter of the gun is that he refused to implicate one or more other people.If Östlund was really there - and I don't know of any witnesses who say they saw a second person lurking around with the gunman - he surely would have to know the answers to these questions.
Isn't it a little too convenient that Östlund says he didn't know anything about the gun? So let's consider the possibility that while Östlund was dying, persons unknown approached him and made it worth his while to issue a bogus statement confirming that he had seen Petterson shoot Palme, thereby confirming Petterson's earlier confession. This would be a perfect way to shut down suspicions of a conspiracy, wouldn't it? Most people would be inclined to say, well, that clinches the matter! So while I am convinced that Petersson was the gunman, I strongly question whether Östlund's deathbed confession should be accepted at face value. Its timing too - just days before the twentieth anniversary of the tragedy - is also a little hard to swallow.
Further reading: Trowbridge Ford, "Assassination of Sweden's Olof Palme (Operation Tree)" here, and Dean Andromidas, "The Palme Murder" here.
Permalink
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Fr. Romeo J. Intengan, SJ ( PCIJ Interview, 2006)
20 FILIPINOS 20 YEARS AFTER PEOPLE POWER
Special EDSA 20th Anniversary PCIJ Issue Jan- Feb. 2006
ROMEO J. Intengan, SJ
"People power practiced too often sends a message abroad that you're an unstable country"
ROMEO INTENGAN, SJ
THE FIRST time Fr. Romeo J. Intengan, SJ, was summoned by a woman who lived in Malacañang, he had to flee the country to avoid her wrath. The woman was Imelda Marcos; the year was 1980. More recently, in November 2005, he came under fire for supposedly presenting exit scenarios to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. He admits she has sought his advice in the past regarding religious matters, but denies bringing up exit plans with her.
Perhaps Someone Up There has been trying to tell Intengan to stay away from the Palace. Or from women in politics. It could well be both. But then the separation of Church and state has never stopped Intengan from seeking to influence politics. As an exile in Sabah, he trained cadres belonging to the political party he helped found. More recently, he has recommended the abolition of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Intengan is a man who embodies many seeming contradictions. While he endorsed the need for armed struggle after the declaration of martial law, he also had a moral dilemma because he was a priest and a doctor. He told his fellow activists, "Ok, I can be your chaplain, but I will not shoot to kill or to maim."
But after he sought refuge in Sabah in 1980, following his brush with an angry Imelda, who was probably miffed at being told pointblank that corruption and cronyism existed during her husband's rule, Intengan had to learn how to handle a gun because the camp where he stayed needed to be defended against wild monkeys. (Thankfully, he never had to kill any.)
Here is more interesting Intengan trivia: that Sabah camp was run by the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). There the Jesuit priest served for more than a year as physician in residence, chaplain, and political officer. In 1982, when the Malaysian government could no longer ignore accusations from the Marcos government that it was harboring Filipino rebels, Intengan had to leave, eventually ending up in Spain, where he pursued further studies in theology. He was still there when the first people power revolt kicked out Ferdinand Marcos and installed Corazon Aquino as president.
In a heartbeat, Intengan hurried home, just like other so-called Marcos exiles who returned to the Philippines almost as soon as the Marcoses landed in Hawaii.Over the last 20 years, many of these ex-exiles have worked their way up — in some cases, literally from scratch — to positions of power and influence in their chosen fields. But there are those who came back and merely took up where they had left off, such as Eugenio Lopez III, heir to the Lopez family fortune and now chair of the ABS-CBN group of companies; radio station owner Ramon 'RJ' Jacinto, another rich man's son who has since expanded his own businesses; and politician Sergio Osmeña III, now on his third term as a senator.
Others include the likes of Heherson Alvarez, who fled the Philippines as a political activist, came back to join the Aquino government, and later became senator; and his wife Cecile Guidote Alvarez, founder of the Philippine Educational Theatre Association (PETA) and now executive director of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts. Then of course there are Intengan and his friend National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, with whom he co-founded the Philippine Democratic Socialist Party (PDSP) in 1973. Both would be thrown in jail in 1978 for leading a march protesting the fraudulent elections held in April that year. Two years later, Imelda Marcos, suspicious that the PDSP was involved in bombings attributed to the April 6 movement (it wasn't), would summon Intengan to the Palace — and have him worried enough to make him hie off to Sabah by way of Jolo.
GONZALES ONCE told Intengan, "You provide the theory, I'll provide the action." The reference was to the priest's role as head of the PDSP's Education Commission — a position the latter has held from the 1970s until today. Intengan's main contribution to PDSP, as he sees it, was to "understand and develop and adapt to the Philippine situation the democratic-socialist and social-democratic… ideological continuum or spectrum." During its early years, PDSP's most important contribution to the Philippine political scene was to present a third alternative to the ones presented by Marcos and the communists. And so, it was not just the Marcos dictatorship that PDSP opposed, but the communist movement as well.
To this day, there is no love lost between the PDSP and the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). In a recent article posted on its website, the PDSP said the CPP and its political and military wings deserve the terrorist tag because they refuse to give up arms. "The CPP/NPA/NDF (do) not want the terror and the violence to cease," it said. "(They) mean to grab power at all costs, even at the cost of peace."
Intengan himself explains the position taken by the PDSP in the 1970s: "Our activism was really a provision of an alternative, a progressive one, which goes for radical social change but a democratic one, not a vanguardist party claiming to have a monopoly of wisdom and aiming for a monopoly of power."
That was in an era when the growing political and societal crises led some priests and nuns to became either supporters of the CPP or its full-fledged members. Luis Jalandoni of the CPP's political wing, the National Democratic Front (NDF), for instance, was a former priest. His wife and fellow NDF member Coni Ledesma was a former nun, as well as one of the founders of the Christians for National Liberation, the underground organization for subversive priests and nuns.
Many of these radical religious supported liberation theology, which interprets the Catholic faith through the eyes of the poor and sees Jesus as a "liberator." In fact, the Society of Jesus's 28th superior general in the Philippines, Fr. Pedro Arrupe, was himself a champion of liberation theology and the Jesuits themselves became identified with the movement, which promotes the active participation of the Church in bringing about social justice.
But Popes John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) frowned on it because of its perceived Marxist leanings. Intengan himself belonged to a less radical tradition, as did many of his fellow Jesuits in the Philippines, who were kept under the watchful eye of the Marcos regime.
UPON HIS return to the Philippines, Intengan proceeded to conduct training sessions for cadres of the now-legal PDSP. He rejoiced at the "restoration of democratic space, where groups which were within the democratic-political spectrum… could now operate freely." He also appreciated the dismantling of the communications and transport monopolies, which allowed the economy to flourish. But he did have a few regrets.
Recalls Intengan, who eventually became the provincial superior of the Jesuits in the Philippines from 1998 to 2004: "There was this relapse to reliance on traditional politics... I (did) not like it on the level of heart or gut, but I understood the reason." Intengan allows that President Corazon Aquino needed the support of the military and politicians to survive. But it was unfortunate, he says, that the social revolution he was hoping for — "where the livelihood of the poor would have been uplifted, where basic equality would have been established, where the political system would have matured to a politics of ideas, of worldview, of real societal models… where culture in the high sense would have been available to all the people" — did not take place.
And while Intengan agrees that there was no one who could have taken the place of Jaime Cardinal Sin in 1986, he observes, "It might also be a mistake to adulate Cardinal Sin." He believes Sin may have erred in endorsing the candidacies of Ramon Mitra and Alfredo Lim in the presidential elections held in 1992 and 1998, respectively, because, he argues, it wasn't made clear to the people why there was a need for such "drastic Church intervention." Intengan also says, "Cardinal Sin's way of doing things was extraordinary in… at least many senses." Filipinos, however, have come to expect the kind of leadership the late Sin provided. That may be why many were surprised when, in July 2005, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines did not ask for Arroyo's resignation and instead called for discernment.
The 63-year-old Intengan says neither Arroyo nor Gonzales had asked him to "influence" the bishops. "The more you try to influence (the bishops), the more resentment you will get," he says. "That might have been part of the reason why they decided not to call for resignation." He also doesn't believe Pope Benedict XVI had anything to do with the bishops' pronouncement. The present pontiff, he says, is actually "much more tolerant of dissent and pluralism than the previous pope." Besides, Intengan believes the Church should not get into "a habit of making very detailed and specific and peremptory political orders to Her people. That's the role of the lay people to discern."
The difficulty at this point, according to Intengan, is that in 1986, "the immediate problem was clear: to restore democracy and respect for human rights… Now the problematic is much different. The lines are not clearly drawn."
"Ethics has at least two aspects," he explains. "You have the ethics of principle and the ethics of responsibility, which considers consequences. And that's where people are divided now. We all know how flawed our ruling class is. But what do you do after? Who will take over?"
He says the Church hierarchy is right in not advocating a position for Catholics to follow in the current political impasse. Yet he doubts the Church's ability to shepherd its flock in the future, noting that the proliferation of Catholic and non-Catholic groups such as El Shaddai and Iglesia ni Kristo is proof that "the Catholic Church has not been effective in handling or responding to very concrete needs of Her flock."
The Church, he says, has failed to communicate effectively with the faithful. As for the government, Intengan cannot help but be amused by charges that the current administration has all but imposed martial law. He says that under Marcos, "running priest" Fr. Robert Reyes would have been arrested and detained a long time ago.
Intengan, though, doesn't believe people power is a viable means for change at this point. "People power practiced too often sends a message abroad that you're a very unstable country," he says. He prefers that institutions are strengthened, "so that even in an emergency they can take care of transitions more effectively than in the past." — Vernon R. Totanes
Copyright © 2006 All rights reserved.PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM
Special EDSA 20th Anniversary PCIJ Issue Jan- Feb. 2006
ROMEO J. Intengan, SJ
"People power practiced too often sends a message abroad that you're an unstable country"
ROMEO INTENGAN, SJ
THE FIRST time Fr. Romeo J. Intengan, SJ, was summoned by a woman who lived in Malacañang, he had to flee the country to avoid her wrath. The woman was Imelda Marcos; the year was 1980. More recently, in November 2005, he came under fire for supposedly presenting exit scenarios to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. He admits she has sought his advice in the past regarding religious matters, but denies bringing up exit plans with her.
Perhaps Someone Up There has been trying to tell Intengan to stay away from the Palace. Or from women in politics. It could well be both. But then the separation of Church and state has never stopped Intengan from seeking to influence politics. As an exile in Sabah, he trained cadres belonging to the political party he helped found. More recently, he has recommended the abolition of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Intengan is a man who embodies many seeming contradictions. While he endorsed the need for armed struggle after the declaration of martial law, he also had a moral dilemma because he was a priest and a doctor. He told his fellow activists, "Ok, I can be your chaplain, but I will not shoot to kill or to maim."
But after he sought refuge in Sabah in 1980, following his brush with an angry Imelda, who was probably miffed at being told pointblank that corruption and cronyism existed during her husband's rule, Intengan had to learn how to handle a gun because the camp where he stayed needed to be defended against wild monkeys. (Thankfully, he never had to kill any.)
Here is more interesting Intengan trivia: that Sabah camp was run by the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). There the Jesuit priest served for more than a year as physician in residence, chaplain, and political officer. In 1982, when the Malaysian government could no longer ignore accusations from the Marcos government that it was harboring Filipino rebels, Intengan had to leave, eventually ending up in Spain, where he pursued further studies in theology. He was still there when the first people power revolt kicked out Ferdinand Marcos and installed Corazon Aquino as president.
In a heartbeat, Intengan hurried home, just like other so-called Marcos exiles who returned to the Philippines almost as soon as the Marcoses landed in Hawaii.Over the last 20 years, many of these ex-exiles have worked their way up — in some cases, literally from scratch — to positions of power and influence in their chosen fields. But there are those who came back and merely took up where they had left off, such as Eugenio Lopez III, heir to the Lopez family fortune and now chair of the ABS-CBN group of companies; radio station owner Ramon 'RJ' Jacinto, another rich man's son who has since expanded his own businesses; and politician Sergio Osmeña III, now on his third term as a senator.
Others include the likes of Heherson Alvarez, who fled the Philippines as a political activist, came back to join the Aquino government, and later became senator; and his wife Cecile Guidote Alvarez, founder of the Philippine Educational Theatre Association (PETA) and now executive director of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts. Then of course there are Intengan and his friend National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, with whom he co-founded the Philippine Democratic Socialist Party (PDSP) in 1973. Both would be thrown in jail in 1978 for leading a march protesting the fraudulent elections held in April that year. Two years later, Imelda Marcos, suspicious that the PDSP was involved in bombings attributed to the April 6 movement (it wasn't), would summon Intengan to the Palace — and have him worried enough to make him hie off to Sabah by way of Jolo.
GONZALES ONCE told Intengan, "You provide the theory, I'll provide the action." The reference was to the priest's role as head of the PDSP's Education Commission — a position the latter has held from the 1970s until today. Intengan's main contribution to PDSP, as he sees it, was to "understand and develop and adapt to the Philippine situation the democratic-socialist and social-democratic… ideological continuum or spectrum." During its early years, PDSP's most important contribution to the Philippine political scene was to present a third alternative to the ones presented by Marcos and the communists. And so, it was not just the Marcos dictatorship that PDSP opposed, but the communist movement as well.
To this day, there is no love lost between the PDSP and the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). In a recent article posted on its website, the PDSP said the CPP and its political and military wings deserve the terrorist tag because they refuse to give up arms. "The CPP/NPA/NDF (do) not want the terror and the violence to cease," it said. "(They) mean to grab power at all costs, even at the cost of peace."
Intengan himself explains the position taken by the PDSP in the 1970s: "Our activism was really a provision of an alternative, a progressive one, which goes for radical social change but a democratic one, not a vanguardist party claiming to have a monopoly of wisdom and aiming for a monopoly of power."
That was in an era when the growing political and societal crises led some priests and nuns to became either supporters of the CPP or its full-fledged members. Luis Jalandoni of the CPP's political wing, the National Democratic Front (NDF), for instance, was a former priest. His wife and fellow NDF member Coni Ledesma was a former nun, as well as one of the founders of the Christians for National Liberation, the underground organization for subversive priests and nuns.
Many of these radical religious supported liberation theology, which interprets the Catholic faith through the eyes of the poor and sees Jesus as a "liberator." In fact, the Society of Jesus's 28th superior general in the Philippines, Fr. Pedro Arrupe, was himself a champion of liberation theology and the Jesuits themselves became identified with the movement, which promotes the active participation of the Church in bringing about social justice.
But Popes John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) frowned on it because of its perceived Marxist leanings. Intengan himself belonged to a less radical tradition, as did many of his fellow Jesuits in the Philippines, who were kept under the watchful eye of the Marcos regime.
UPON HIS return to the Philippines, Intengan proceeded to conduct training sessions for cadres of the now-legal PDSP. He rejoiced at the "restoration of democratic space, where groups which were within the democratic-political spectrum… could now operate freely." He also appreciated the dismantling of the communications and transport monopolies, which allowed the economy to flourish. But he did have a few regrets.
Recalls Intengan, who eventually became the provincial superior of the Jesuits in the Philippines from 1998 to 2004: "There was this relapse to reliance on traditional politics... I (did) not like it on the level of heart or gut, but I understood the reason." Intengan allows that President Corazon Aquino needed the support of the military and politicians to survive. But it was unfortunate, he says, that the social revolution he was hoping for — "where the livelihood of the poor would have been uplifted, where basic equality would have been established, where the political system would have matured to a politics of ideas, of worldview, of real societal models… where culture in the high sense would have been available to all the people" — did not take place.
And while Intengan agrees that there was no one who could have taken the place of Jaime Cardinal Sin in 1986, he observes, "It might also be a mistake to adulate Cardinal Sin." He believes Sin may have erred in endorsing the candidacies of Ramon Mitra and Alfredo Lim in the presidential elections held in 1992 and 1998, respectively, because, he argues, it wasn't made clear to the people why there was a need for such "drastic Church intervention." Intengan also says, "Cardinal Sin's way of doing things was extraordinary in… at least many senses." Filipinos, however, have come to expect the kind of leadership the late Sin provided. That may be why many were surprised when, in July 2005, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines did not ask for Arroyo's resignation and instead called for discernment.
The 63-year-old Intengan says neither Arroyo nor Gonzales had asked him to "influence" the bishops. "The more you try to influence (the bishops), the more resentment you will get," he says. "That might have been part of the reason why they decided not to call for resignation." He also doesn't believe Pope Benedict XVI had anything to do with the bishops' pronouncement. The present pontiff, he says, is actually "much more tolerant of dissent and pluralism than the previous pope." Besides, Intengan believes the Church should not get into "a habit of making very detailed and specific and peremptory political orders to Her people. That's the role of the lay people to discern."
The difficulty at this point, according to Intengan, is that in 1986, "the immediate problem was clear: to restore democracy and respect for human rights… Now the problematic is much different. The lines are not clearly drawn."
"Ethics has at least two aspects," he explains. "You have the ethics of principle and the ethics of responsibility, which considers consequences. And that's where people are divided now. We all know how flawed our ruling class is. But what do you do after? Who will take over?"
He says the Church hierarchy is right in not advocating a position for Catholics to follow in the current political impasse. Yet he doubts the Church's ability to shepherd its flock in the future, noting that the proliferation of Catholic and non-Catholic groups such as El Shaddai and Iglesia ni Kristo is proof that "the Catholic Church has not been effective in handling or responding to very concrete needs of Her flock."
The Church, he says, has failed to communicate effectively with the faithful. As for the government, Intengan cannot help but be amused by charges that the current administration has all but imposed martial law. He says that under Marcos, "running priest" Fr. Robert Reyes would have been arrested and detained a long time ago.
Intengan, though, doesn't believe people power is a viable means for change at this point. "People power practiced too often sends a message abroad that you're a very unstable country," he says. He prefers that institutions are strengthened, "so that even in an emergency they can take care of transitions more effectively than in the past." — Vernon R. Totanes
Copyright © 2006 All rights reserved.PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
