Philippine Civil Society and Democratization in the Context of Left Politics

Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem, Ph.D.Department of Political Science

College of Social Sciences and PhilosophyUniversity of the Philippines Diliman

Introduction

• This paper focuses on the emergence of civil society organizations (CSOs) within the context of mainstream Philippine Left movement politics, i.e., the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People’s Army (NPA), its military arm and the National Democratic Front (NDF).

• Although there exists other CSOs which do not belong to any of the left ideological blocs in the country, it is the CSOs which have their base in the Philippine left movement which have been most prominent in pushing for the country’s democratization process.

I. The Philippine “Oligarchic State” but “Weak” State

• CSOs which have emerged from the Philippine left movement have to generally grapple with a society that is characterized by traditional patron-client relationships as epitomized by an oligarchic state which is controlled by a few.

• What continued to emerge were the old political dynasties as well as new ones which were established during martial law. Thus, some have viewed the shift as one form of “bourgeois dictatorship” to a “bourgeois democracy.”

II. “Uncivil society”: NGOs and the Philippine Left Movement

• It is thus within the context of a dominant oligarchic and patrimonial state by which non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which became a major component of the country’s civil society, emerged in the Philippines.

• NGOs have been around in the Philippines since the 1950s and 1960s but it was during the martial period (1972-1986) whereby NGOs blossomed under the auspices of the CPP-NPA-NDF.

• These organizations helped fill out a political space which was abandoned by political parties and other forms of opposition against the Marcos regime.

• Because they were situated in the grassroots, they became a recipient of donor countries and foreign agencies. The work of NGOs and POs for the CPP, however, remained to be subordinated to the armed struggle.

• There were also other Left ideological blocs, like an independent socialist bloc and the social democrats which challenged the Marcos dictatorship but these were not as dominant as the mainstream left who were also referred to as national democrats or “natdems” or “NDs”.

III. Emergence of Philippine “Civil Society” in a Period of Re-democratization

• It was only during the period of re-democratization which was ushered in by the 1986 People Power Revolution that the term “civil society” was popularly used.

• This is best seen in the light of the tension which arose between the CPP leadership and the its cadres involved in NGO work. The former believed that NGO development work should be secondary to the armed struggle but the latter believed otherwise.

• This was one of the reasons which caused the split in the CPP in December 1992 between the two factions, i.e., “reaffirmists” (RA) and the “rejectionists” (RJs).

• The RAs are those who maintain that the CPP should continue to strictly adhere to the orthodox Marxist-Leninist and Maoist principles that they had advocated from the early days of the CPP, while the RJs are those who reject this.

• People empowerment is thus seen as the “process of building up ‘parallel power’ in ‘civil society’ that would reduce class power and ultimately transform the exercise of state power.”

• “Civil society” as a term is therefore used to include all non-state actors which challenge the state. In terms of their categorization, a bulk of civil society players come from the left ideological blocs.

Two Case Studies:

1. Freedom From Debt Coalition (FDC) which emerged in late 1986 with the overthrow of the dictatorship. FDC proposed an alternative debt policy with three basic calls: – debt moratorium on foreign debt service

payments– selective debt repudiation of loans which did not

benefit the Filipino people– limit foreign debt-service payments to no more

than 10 percent of export earnings to enable the country to finance its economic recovery

2. Task Force –World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture (TF-WAR)

• Created in September 1998 by the Department of Agriculture, the TF-WAR is a multisectoral consultative body and is composed of 21 representatives from state institutions and agencies which have a key participation in trade policymaking

• Among its members are farmers groups, non-governmental organizations as well as industry and stakeholders associations within the agricultural sector

• The goal was to adopt a defensive strategy to prevent the further erosion of Philippine agriculture.

IV. The Advocacies, Strategies and Organizational Structure of CSOs in the Post-Martial Law Period

1. Creating an environment of peace2. Addressing socio-economic inequalities

(TF-WAR)3. Fight against corruption (FDC)4. Non-class issues

A. Civil Society Strategies to Pursue these AdvocaciesThese strategies have been pursued by both FDC and TF-WAR1. Constituency-building, research and training program and

social development work as seen in advocacies in peace, women, environmental concerns

2. Legal remedies through constitutional reforms 3. Demonstrations and protest actions4. Alliances with local and transnational social movements 5. Electoral politics – formation of political parties and/or

alliances with elite politicians6. Arenas of contentions – institutional: executive, legislative and

judiciary7. Non-institutional: media (including social networking), church,

business community, military

B. Organizational Structure of the CSOs• In terms of their organizational structures, CSO networks

generally operate with “no single organization or center for decision making and often not even any formal process. In this situation, cooperation is non-hierarchical, informal and often temporary and issue-specific.”

• This is reflected in CSO networks organizations in the Philippines whereby in their pursuit of their advocacies, what seems to be the most effective is the forging of broad alliances among the various Left political blocs in the country.

• All these are strengthened by coalition-and alliance building strategies at the global level, e.g., anti-globalization alliances.

C. Weaknesses in the Strategies:

1. The divisions in the Philippine Left movement between the “Reaffirmists” (“RAs”) and the “Rejectionists” (“RJs”)

2. Personality differences3. Alliances with elites and the issue of

cooperation vs. cooptation

V. Factors which Facilitated the Pursuit of Civil Society Advocacies

1. The nature of the political dispensation as was seen in the country’s transitioning from authoritarianism to democracy.

2. Nature of the leadership.3. The global environment

VI. General Impact of Civil Society on the Philippine Political Landscape1. The generation of interest and participation in the

advocacies of civil society. Thus it is able to build its constituencies.

2. Forging of CSO alliances with government agencies allies in the executive and legislative branches of government.

3. Institutionalization of CSO advocacies within government policy-making.

4. Institutionalization of CSO advocacies in the international arena.

5. Constitutional reforms.

VII. Challenges Confronted by CSOs

1. Elite domination of Philippine politics 2. Dependence on the political leadership

3. Co-optation of CSO personalities by the

political elites4. The military 5. Electoral failure6. Absence of a feasible left alternative