Becoming President is Noynoy’s destiny, we are told and there have been various attempts to describe 'destiny', both in religious and secular terms. When people talk of destiny, I start to get uncomfortable. Women, after all, have been ‘destined’ to be oppressed for several thousand years now – our biology, we have been told for several thousand years, is our 'destiny'.
As a young feminist discovering ‘herstory’ and trying to demystify the layers and layers of oppression that surrounded my life, I was quick to learn that ‘destiny’ was a mystification for the underlying patriarchal power relations which controlled my life. By mystifying these power relations, 'destiny' in fact, justified them and kept them in place. The only way to struggle for liberation was and is to challenge our ‘destiny’, which meant challenging the underlying power relations.
Anyone born into a powerful political clan in the Philippines is ‘destined’ to rule. That’s the class system of power relations in this country. Why Noynoy and not Mar? That can be put down to what I call the ‘accidental’ factors in life. Mar, however, is still ‘destined’ to be President, by virtue of his belonging to a family with wealth and therefore power and privilege. He could still fulfill his ‘destiny’ in 2016.
I will stick to the lessons I learned hard as a socialist-feminist. We, the oppressed and under-privileged, must challenge ‘our destiny’, or more accurately the 'destiny' that the system of elite rule imposes on us and in doing so challenge the privileged ‘destiny’ of the sons and daughters of the elite political clans.
I am waiting for a poor, Muslim woman, to challenge and defy her destiny and be a potential winner in a Presidential election. Then we know that change is nigh and that the masa are prepared to challenge and defy their destiny.
‘Defy your destiny’, should be our slogan for the day. And in so doing, we make it our own and collectively reshape it.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
The Philippine left and Cory Aquino
THE Philippine left’s reaction to the death of Cory Aquino has been intriguing.
The CPP did a complete about-turn, literary recanting their previous position of Cory Aquino being a representative of the reactionary classes. The NDF statement laid the blame for the massacre of unarmed peasants at Mendiola under the Aquino administration – one of the most tragic episodes in the history of the left in the Philippines – at the feet of the “military and police [who] caused the termination of the ceasefire agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the NDFP when they indiscriminately fired on the peasants and their urban supporters marching for land reform on January 22, 1987.”
Thus a massacre became an “indiscriminate firing” and the Aquino administration was devolved of all responsibility in a stunningly hypocritical rewriting of history.
As for Cory Aquino’s active support to keep the US bases in the Philippines and against moves by the senate then to remove the bases, the NDF statement has only this to say: “She was openly critical of the long running support of the US for the Marcos dictatorship in exchange for the aggrandizement of US economic interests and the continuance of the US military bases.” Not a word on her pro-US bases stance after she came to power.
Even those of us now well-accustomed to the CPP’s unashamed pragmatism swallowed hard while reading the NDF statement signed by top CPP leaders including Joma Sison. However, this is not the first time that history has been rewritten, especially by the CPP, to suit the various twists and turns in its political line.
Partido Lakas ng Masa, on the other hand, issued a statement outlining its assessment of the main characteristics of the Cory regime. It read, in part, “Cory Aquino was the icon of the revival of pre-dictatorial ‘elite democracy’ in the country. She was the symbol of a ‘people power revolution’ which deposed the dictator Marcos but failed to institute a people’s power government. The governmental alliance that she established under her ‘revolutionary government’ quickly transformed into a government headed by elite groups previously persecuted by the Marcos dictatorship.”
Most importantly, the PLM statement issued by Sonny Melencio, its chairperson, implied that what was really posed was the possibility of the left leading the anti-dictatorship movement and taking political power. “While Aquino was seen as leading the downfall of the much-hated Marcos dictatorship, it is classes and not individuals that make history. There were various factors and players at work who made the ouster of Marcos a reality. Edsa 1 itself was a confluence of a military mutiny and a people’s uprising. The build-up to Edsa 1 was a series of protests, sacrifices, and small-scale rebellion led by the Left and other progressive forces. It is unfortunate, however, that the Left which has sacrificed the most during the period of the dictatorship, ended up ‘politically isolated’ due to errors related to its strategy and tactics.”
It concluded by arguing that the current crisis facing the people under the rotting carcass of the GMA regime is in fact a part of Cory’s legacy: “In a sense, Gloria Macapagal’s rise to power was a product of the limited and distorted character of Cory’s ‘revolution’”.
Akbayan did not release a formal statement, but some of it’s individual leaders attempted to expose the real record of the Cory administration, such as its active opposition to the removal of US bases and the burdensome legacy of debt left to the future generations to carry, enshrined in what became known as the Cory constitution, which made the annual repayment of the Philippine debt mandatory.
Some leaders of Akbayan argued that the problem was the bad advisors who surrounded Cory Aquino. Others, such as Emmanuel Hizon, argued that despite this anti-people record, the Cory administration was still seen by the people as a representative of the ideal of freedom and democracy.
“Who could forget the Aquino government’s pro-US military bases stance? Who could not recall her government’s US-backed low intensity conflict and total war policy against “insurgents” which in truth harmed the masses more than its perceived enemies?”
The article then went onto explain the mass support for Cory: “[T]his woman despite her regime’s numerous social and economic transgressions is so loved and cherished by a people representing three generation of Edsas. It’s not so much because she is religious, a mother-like figure to many, a glorified widow or simply a martyr; beyond the labels, our ideological flexing and the comfortable branding of pundits, Cory has been duly recognized by the people as an icon in their transition from despotism to rule of law, their struggle from tyranny towards a sense of freedom and democracy. Cory is first and foremost the representation of that ideal, of that difficult journey towards democratization, of that collective national experience.”
And it continued, “She will also be remembered as a defender of that particular form of democracy, flawed and wanting it may be in so many ways, not measuring up to our Marxist concept of a democratic archetype. From people power 2 which removed an incompetent and corrupt regime up to her participation in the fight to throw out the illegitimate Arroyo regime and its sinister plan to amend the constitution, Cory will be remembered and respected as a person who despite her privileged status joined the people in their most trying and important political junctures.”
No Lessons Reviewed
What struck me most about the left analysis of Cory and the Cory years, however, was the lack of any serious assessment of the lessons that this critical period in history holds for left strategy today. In this sense the analysis has been a-historical. In most cases it hasn’t gone beyond the role of Cory as an individual or the reviewing of some facts of her administration’s record, instead of analysing and attempting to understand the lessons they hold for left strategy today. Does this mean that the left has nothing to learn from the Edsa revolution that overthrew Marcos and stabilised the system of pre-Marcos elite rule? Or is this a form of denial, a refusal to collectively look at the period head on and draw the relevant lessons for today?
After all the Aquino years were a 'traumatic' period for the revolutionary left, having to come to terms with its own failure in losing the leadership of the political revolution, as well as having to suffer ongoing repression with the massacre of farmers in Mendiola, as well as the assassination of leaders of the movement, Rolando Olalia and Lean Alejandro.
The Edsa revolution was a double-edged sword for the revolutionary left: a partial victory in building a mass movement that overthrew the dictatorship, but also a defeat of its strategy. Most importantly, today, we continue to live with the legacy of all this.
I think that the left has only made a partial assessment of the Edsa revolution and its aftermath. I have always believed that a more comprehensive assessment is necessary, because it is of the utmost importance that we learn the lessons for today.
As historical materialists our starting point should be that classes make history and not 'great leaders' (and not even political parties, which are the tools used by the working class in the struggle). As the PLM statement correctly points out, “While Aquino was seen as leading the downfall of the much-hated Marcos dictatorship, it is classes and not individuals that make history.”
We should also internalise that Napoleonic dictum that 'Defeated armies learn well'. This is something that the Cuban revolutionaries managed to do in the aftermath of the defeat of the Moncada rebellion on July 26, 1953 (celebrated a few days ago) and then went on, a few years later, to lead a successful insurrection resulting in the Cuban revolution in 1959.
I think that the Philippine left is still grappling with this and is an army that has not, as yet, learned its lessons well.
Some lessons and more questions
Admittedly some lessons have been drawn by sections of the left and it’s important that these are summarised. While these positions are differently nuanced amongst the various political parties or blocs, the main lessons can be identified as follows:
(i) The importance of the left intervening in the electoral arena, and
(ii) The rejection or questioning of the Maoist strategy of protracted peoples war.
Others have also pointed to the important role that the military plays in an insurrection or political revolution. The transitional demand for a Transitional Revolutionary Government put forward by Laban ng Masa during the height of the struggle to oust the GMA regime, was also partially referenced by the government of Cory Aquino which was then referred to as a ‘revolutionary government’.
A key lesson of the 1986 Edsa revolution is the importance of the electoral tactic in the mobilisation of the masses and the capture of government and political power. The CPP’s ultra-left, electoral boycott tactic was a fatal error leading to the isolation of the left and the victory of the elite over the anti-dictatorship upsurge. If the CPP had fully participated in the election campaign and used the electoral tactic to the fullest extent possible, to mobilise the masses, the outcome of the Edsa revolution would have been different. Cory and the elite forces’ victory in February could have been followed by a revolutionary October, as the CPP Chair Jose Maria Sison, then promised. This never came to pass and instead we experienced a period of decline of the revolutionary movement.
The left learned this lesson hard and through the 1990s started to run its own candidates and participate in the electoral arena. However, the overall character of the left electoral intervention has been to play the electoral card in an extremely conventional way, within the boundaries set by traditional bourgeois politics, that it has become impossible to differentiate the left’s electoral campaigns from those of the trapo candidates. ‘We have to play the game’ was the justification given. And the left certainly did ‘play the game’. So much so, that the CPP’s electoral organisations were the de facto party list of choice of the GMA regime in the 2001 and 2004 elections (an assessment, quite rightly made, in the Inquirer editorial of July 27). The mobilisation of the masses is not the aim, but the winning of seats is, and by any means necessary.
The revolutionary movement in Latin America has once again placed the electoral tactic on the agenda. In Venezuela and Bolivia the revolutionary movement used the electoral tactic to capture government and then proceeded to extend and consolidate a revolutionary political and state power. This lesson and experience is now being extended to Nicaragua , El Salvador , Uruguay and Ecuador .
The lesson for us in the Philippines is that the electoral tactic, under certain conditions, such as during an extreme crisis of elite rule and a sharp rise in the class struggle (as was the case in the period leading to the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship) can be used to mobilise the masses on a massive scale to create a major breach in the system of elite/bourgeois rule. This is a key lesson of the Edsa revolution and a lesson from the advances made by the revolutionary movements in Latin America today. However, as long as we use the electoral tactic purely within the boundaries set by trapo politicians, our political gains will be extremely limited and our movement will suffer the problems of opportunism, that so marks the left’s electoral interventions today.
We also need to start by asking ourselves the right questions in the process of trying to draw useful lessons. Why is it that sections of the elite have time and again been able to use populist rhetoric, to mobilise and lead the masa to serve their own interests, including in winning the leadership from the left? For me this is a key question, or maybe eventhe key question, that needs to be posed over and over again, especially during periods of crisis such as the one we face in the Philippines today. #
The CPP did a complete about-turn, literary recanting their previous position of Cory Aquino being a representative of the reactionary classes. The NDF statement laid the blame for the massacre of unarmed peasants at Mendiola under the Aquino administration – one of the most tragic episodes in the history of the left in the Philippines – at the feet of the “military and police [who] caused the termination of the ceasefire agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the NDFP when they indiscriminately fired on the peasants and their urban supporters marching for land reform on January 22, 1987.”
Thus a massacre became an “indiscriminate firing” and the Aquino administration was devolved of all responsibility in a stunningly hypocritical rewriting of history.
As for Cory Aquino’s active support to keep the US bases in the Philippines and against moves by the senate then to remove the bases, the NDF statement has only this to say: “She was openly critical of the long running support of the US for the Marcos dictatorship in exchange for the aggrandizement of US economic interests and the continuance of the US military bases.” Not a word on her pro-US bases stance after she came to power.
Even those of us now well-accustomed to the CPP’s unashamed pragmatism swallowed hard while reading the NDF statement signed by top CPP leaders including Joma Sison. However, this is not the first time that history has been rewritten, especially by the CPP, to suit the various twists and turns in its political line.
Partido Lakas ng Masa, on the other hand, issued a statement outlining its assessment of the main characteristics of the Cory regime. It read, in part, “Cory Aquino was the icon of the revival of pre-dictatorial ‘elite democracy’ in the country. She was the symbol of a ‘people power revolution’ which deposed the dictator Marcos but failed to institute a people’s power government. The governmental alliance that she established under her ‘revolutionary government’ quickly transformed into a government headed by elite groups previously persecuted by the Marcos dictatorship.”
Most importantly, the PLM statement issued by Sonny Melencio, its chairperson, implied that what was really posed was the possibility of the left leading the anti-dictatorship movement and taking political power. “While Aquino was seen as leading the downfall of the much-hated Marcos dictatorship, it is classes and not individuals that make history. There were various factors and players at work who made the ouster of Marcos a reality. Edsa 1 itself was a confluence of a military mutiny and a people’s uprising. The build-up to Edsa 1 was a series of protests, sacrifices, and small-scale rebellion led by the Left and other progressive forces. It is unfortunate, however, that the Left which has sacrificed the most during the period of the dictatorship, ended up ‘politically isolated’ due to errors related to its strategy and tactics.”
It concluded by arguing that the current crisis facing the people under the rotting carcass of the GMA regime is in fact a part of Cory’s legacy: “In a sense, Gloria Macapagal’s rise to power was a product of the limited and distorted character of Cory’s ‘revolution’”.
Akbayan did not release a formal statement, but some of it’s individual leaders attempted to expose the real record of the Cory administration, such as its active opposition to the removal of US bases and the burdensome legacy of debt left to the future generations to carry, enshrined in what became known as the Cory constitution, which made the annual repayment of the Philippine debt mandatory.
Some leaders of Akbayan argued that the problem was the bad advisors who surrounded Cory Aquino. Others, such as Emmanuel Hizon, argued that despite this anti-people record, the Cory administration was still seen by the people as a representative of the ideal of freedom and democracy.
“Who could forget the Aquino government’s pro-US military bases stance? Who could not recall her government’s US-backed low intensity conflict and total war policy against “insurgents” which in truth harmed the masses more than its perceived enemies?”
The article then went onto explain the mass support for Cory: “[T]his woman despite her regime’s numerous social and economic transgressions is so loved and cherished by a people representing three generation of Edsas. It’s not so much because she is religious, a mother-like figure to many, a glorified widow or simply a martyr; beyond the labels, our ideological flexing and the comfortable branding of pundits, Cory has been duly recognized by the people as an icon in their transition from despotism to rule of law, their struggle from tyranny towards a sense of freedom and democracy. Cory is first and foremost the representation of that ideal, of that difficult journey towards democratization, of that collective national experience.”
And it continued, “She will also be remembered as a defender of that particular form of democracy, flawed and wanting it may be in so many ways, not measuring up to our Marxist concept of a democratic archetype. From people power 2 which removed an incompetent and corrupt regime up to her participation in the fight to throw out the illegitimate Arroyo regime and its sinister plan to amend the constitution, Cory will be remembered and respected as a person who despite her privileged status joined the people in their most trying and important political junctures.”
No Lessons Reviewed
What struck me most about the left analysis of Cory and the Cory years, however, was the lack of any serious assessment of the lessons that this critical period in history holds for left strategy today. In this sense the analysis has been a-historical. In most cases it hasn’t gone beyond the role of Cory as an individual or the reviewing of some facts of her administration’s record, instead of analysing and attempting to understand the lessons they hold for left strategy today. Does this mean that the left has nothing to learn from the Edsa revolution that overthrew Marcos and stabilised the system of pre-Marcos elite rule? Or is this a form of denial, a refusal to collectively look at the period head on and draw the relevant lessons for today?
After all the Aquino years were a 'traumatic' period for the revolutionary left, having to come to terms with its own failure in losing the leadership of the political revolution, as well as having to suffer ongoing repression with the massacre of farmers in Mendiola, as well as the assassination of leaders of the movement, Rolando Olalia and Lean Alejandro.
The Edsa revolution was a double-edged sword for the revolutionary left: a partial victory in building a mass movement that overthrew the dictatorship, but also a defeat of its strategy. Most importantly, today, we continue to live with the legacy of all this.
I think that the left has only made a partial assessment of the Edsa revolution and its aftermath. I have always believed that a more comprehensive assessment is necessary, because it is of the utmost importance that we learn the lessons for today.
As historical materialists our starting point should be that classes make history and not 'great leaders' (and not even political parties, which are the tools used by the working class in the struggle). As the PLM statement correctly points out, “While Aquino was seen as leading the downfall of the much-hated Marcos dictatorship, it is classes and not individuals that make history.”
We should also internalise that Napoleonic dictum that 'Defeated armies learn well'. This is something that the Cuban revolutionaries managed to do in the aftermath of the defeat of the Moncada rebellion on July 26, 1953 (celebrated a few days ago) and then went on, a few years later, to lead a successful insurrection resulting in the Cuban revolution in 1959.
I think that the Philippine left is still grappling with this and is an army that has not, as yet, learned its lessons well.
Some lessons and more questions
Admittedly some lessons have been drawn by sections of the left and it’s important that these are summarised. While these positions are differently nuanced amongst the various political parties or blocs, the main lessons can be identified as follows:
(i) The importance of the left intervening in the electoral arena, and
(ii) The rejection or questioning of the Maoist strategy of protracted peoples war.
Others have also pointed to the important role that the military plays in an insurrection or political revolution. The transitional demand for a Transitional Revolutionary Government put forward by Laban ng Masa during the height of the struggle to oust the GMA regime, was also partially referenced by the government of Cory Aquino which was then referred to as a ‘revolutionary government’.
A key lesson of the 1986 Edsa revolution is the importance of the electoral tactic in the mobilisation of the masses and the capture of government and political power. The CPP’s ultra-left, electoral boycott tactic was a fatal error leading to the isolation of the left and the victory of the elite over the anti-dictatorship upsurge. If the CPP had fully participated in the election campaign and used the electoral tactic to the fullest extent possible, to mobilise the masses, the outcome of the Edsa revolution would have been different. Cory and the elite forces’ victory in February could have been followed by a revolutionary October, as the CPP Chair Jose Maria Sison, then promised. This never came to pass and instead we experienced a period of decline of the revolutionary movement.
The left learned this lesson hard and through the 1990s started to run its own candidates and participate in the electoral arena. However, the overall character of the left electoral intervention has been to play the electoral card in an extremely conventional way, within the boundaries set by traditional bourgeois politics, that it has become impossible to differentiate the left’s electoral campaigns from those of the trapo candidates. ‘We have to play the game’ was the justification given. And the left certainly did ‘play the game’. So much so, that the CPP’s electoral organisations were the de facto party list of choice of the GMA regime in the 2001 and 2004 elections (an assessment, quite rightly made, in the Inquirer editorial of July 27). The mobilisation of the masses is not the aim, but the winning of seats is, and by any means necessary.
The revolutionary movement in Latin America has once again placed the electoral tactic on the agenda. In Venezuela and Bolivia the revolutionary movement used the electoral tactic to capture government and then proceeded to extend and consolidate a revolutionary political and state power. This lesson and experience is now being extended to Nicaragua , El Salvador , Uruguay and Ecuador .
The lesson for us in the Philippines is that the electoral tactic, under certain conditions, such as during an extreme crisis of elite rule and a sharp rise in the class struggle (as was the case in the period leading to the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship) can be used to mobilise the masses on a massive scale to create a major breach in the system of elite/bourgeois rule. This is a key lesson of the Edsa revolution and a lesson from the advances made by the revolutionary movements in Latin America today. However, as long as we use the electoral tactic purely within the boundaries set by trapo politicians, our political gains will be extremely limited and our movement will suffer the problems of opportunism, that so marks the left’s electoral interventions today.
We also need to start by asking ourselves the right questions in the process of trying to draw useful lessons. Why is it that sections of the elite have time and again been able to use populist rhetoric, to mobilise and lead the masa to serve their own interests, including in winning the leadership from the left? For me this is a key question, or maybe eventhe key question, that needs to be posed over and over again, especially during periods of crisis such as the one we face in the Philippines today. #
Sunday, August 2, 2009
The 1986 Edsa Revolution , Latin America Today & the Electoral Tactic
A key lesson of the 1986 Edsa revolution is the importance of the electoral tactic in the mobilisation of the masses and the capture of government and political power. The CPP’s ultra-left, electoral boycott tactic, was a fatal error leading to the isolation of the left and the victory of the elite over the anti-dictatorship upsurge. If the CPP had fully participated in the election campaign and used the electoral tactic to the fullest extent possible, to mobilise the masses, the outcome of the Edsa revolution would have been different. Cory and the elite forces victory in February could have been followed by a revolutionary October, as the CPP Chair Jose Maria Sison, then promised. This never came to pass and instead we experienced a period of decline of the revolutionary movement.
The left learned this lesson hard and through the 1990s started to run its’ own candidates and participate in the electoral arena. However, the overall character of the left electoral intervention has been to play the electoral card in an extremely conventional way, within the boundaries set by traditional bourgeois politics, that it has become impossible to differentiate the left’s electoral campaigns from those of the trapo candidates. ‘We have to play the game’ was the justification given. And the left certainly did ‘play the game’. So much so, that the CPP’s electoral organisations were the defacto party list of choice of the GMA regime in the 2001 and 2004 elections (an assessment, quite rightly made, in the Inquirer editorial of July 27). The mobilisation of the masses is not the aim, but the winning of seats is, and by any means necessary.
The revolutionary movement in Latin America has once again placed the electoral tactic on the agenda. In Venezuela and Bolivia the revolutionary movement used the electoral tactic to capture government and then proceeded to extend and consolidate a revolutionary political and state power. This lesson and experience is now being extended to Nicaragua, El Salvador, Uruguay and Ecuador.
The lesson for us in the Philippines is that the electoral tactic, under certain conditions, such as during an extreme crisis of elite rule and a sharp rise in the class struggle (as was the case in the period leading to the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship) can be used to mobilise the masses on a massive scale to create a major breach in the system of elite/bourgeois rule. This is a key lesson of the Edsa revolution and a lesson from the advances made by the revolutionary movements in Latin America today. However, as long as we use the electoral tactic purely within the boundaries set by trapo politicians, our political gains will be extremely limited and our movement will suffer the problems of opportunism, that so marks the left’s electoral interventions today.
The left learned this lesson hard and through the 1990s started to run its’ own candidates and participate in the electoral arena. However, the overall character of the left electoral intervention has been to play the electoral card in an extremely conventional way, within the boundaries set by traditional bourgeois politics, that it has become impossible to differentiate the left’s electoral campaigns from those of the trapo candidates. ‘We have to play the game’ was the justification given. And the left certainly did ‘play the game’. So much so, that the CPP’s electoral organisations were the defacto party list of choice of the GMA regime in the 2001 and 2004 elections (an assessment, quite rightly made, in the Inquirer editorial of July 27). The mobilisation of the masses is not the aim, but the winning of seats is, and by any means necessary.
The revolutionary movement in Latin America has once again placed the electoral tactic on the agenda. In Venezuela and Bolivia the revolutionary movement used the electoral tactic to capture government and then proceeded to extend and consolidate a revolutionary political and state power. This lesson and experience is now being extended to Nicaragua, El Salvador, Uruguay and Ecuador.
The lesson for us in the Philippines is that the electoral tactic, under certain conditions, such as during an extreme crisis of elite rule and a sharp rise in the class struggle (as was the case in the period leading to the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship) can be used to mobilise the masses on a massive scale to create a major breach in the system of elite/bourgeois rule. This is a key lesson of the Edsa revolution and a lesson from the advances made by the revolutionary movements in Latin America today. However, as long as we use the electoral tactic purely within the boundaries set by trapo politicians, our political gains will be extremely limited and our movement will suffer the problems of opportunism, that so marks the left’s electoral interventions today.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Cory Aquino's Legacy: Reviewing the Lessons
The death of Cory Aquino is now being mourned. Over the next few days we will be witnessing a media review of her legacy, which will be overwhelmingly favourable to the pro-elite, anti-Marcos opposition, that took political power, sidelining the left and the mass movement. Cory Aquino has been described as the icon of Philippines democracy. We would like to qualify this to state that she was/is an icon of elite democracy and this is an important qualification.
It's also important that the left, the Marxist left, re-asserts it's own assessment of the Aquino years and the Aquino legacy.
The Aquino years were a 'traumatic' period for the revolutionary left, having to come to terms with it's own failure in losing the leadership of the political revolution, as well as having to suffer ongoing repression with the massacre of farmers in Mendiola, as well as the assassination of leaders of the movement, Rolando Olalia and Lean Alejandro.
The Edsa revolution was a double-edged sword for the revolutionary left: a partial victory in building a mass movement that overthrew the dictatorship, but also a defeat of it's strategy. Most importantly, today, we continue to live with the legacy of all this.
I think that the left has only made a partial assessment of the Edsa revolution and it's aftermath. I have always believed that a more comprehensive assessment is necessary, because it is of the utmost importance that we learn the lessons for today.
As historical materialists our starting point should be that classes make history and not 'great leaders' (and not even political parties, which are the tools used by the working class in the struggle). We should also internalise that Napoleonic dictum that 'Defeated armies learn well'. This is something that the Cuban revolutionaries managed to do in the aftermath of the defeat of the Moncada rebellion on July 26, 1953 (celebrated a few days ago) and then went on, a few years later, to lead a successful insurrection resulting in the Cuban revolution in 1959.
I think that the Philippine left is still grappling with this and is an army that has not, as yet, learned it's lessons well.
I think the passing away of Cory Aquino reopens this whole discussion and we should roll up our sleeves and get 'stuck into it'.
Ka Sonny Melencio is starting to write about it and we will also try and schedule a Socialist Dialogue discussion on the topic.
--
Reihana
It's also important that the left, the Marxist left, re-asserts it's own assessment of the Aquino years and the Aquino legacy.
The Aquino years were a 'traumatic' period for the revolutionary left, having to come to terms with it's own failure in losing the leadership of the political revolution, as well as having to suffer ongoing repression with the massacre of farmers in Mendiola, as well as the assassination of leaders of the movement, Rolando Olalia and Lean Alejandro.
The Edsa revolution was a double-edged sword for the revolutionary left: a partial victory in building a mass movement that overthrew the dictatorship, but also a defeat of it's strategy. Most importantly, today, we continue to live with the legacy of all this.
I think that the left has only made a partial assessment of the Edsa revolution and it's aftermath. I have always believed that a more comprehensive assessment is necessary, because it is of the utmost importance that we learn the lessons for today.
As historical materialists our starting point should be that classes make history and not 'great leaders' (and not even political parties, which are the tools used by the working class in the struggle). We should also internalise that Napoleonic dictum that 'Defeated armies learn well'. This is something that the Cuban revolutionaries managed to do in the aftermath of the defeat of the Moncada rebellion on July 26, 1953 (celebrated a few days ago) and then went on, a few years later, to lead a successful insurrection resulting in the Cuban revolution in 1959.
I think that the Philippine left is still grappling with this and is an army that has not, as yet, learned it's lessons well.
I think the passing away of Cory Aquino reopens this whole discussion and we should roll up our sleeves and get 'stuck into it'.
Ka Sonny Melencio is starting to write about it and we will also try and schedule a Socialist Dialogue discussion on the topic.
--
Reihana
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Tamil Self-Determination and the LTTE: Some Lessons to Continue & Renew the Struggle
By Reihana Mohideen
“To save the lives of our people is the need of the hour. Mindful of this, we have already announced to the world our position to silence our guns to save our people," said Selvarasa Pathmanathan, the head of LTTE’s International Diplomatic Relations on May 17, thus flagging the military defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. While the military defeat of the LTTE does not necessarily mean its demise, and it most certainly does not represent the end of the struggle for Tamil self-determination in Sri Lanka, nevertheless it is a major setback to the struggle for a Tamil Eelam.
And while calls for a political settlement of the conflict must be supported, the possibility of a genuine political settlement, i.e. peace with justice, is probably far less likely today than when the Tigers were still a powerful military force willing to negotiate a political settlement. The Tigers are in a far weaker position to negotiate a political settlement for a liberated Tamil homeland today, than they have been in previous years.
At the same time, the Sinhalese government victory is a veritable double-edged sword. The Tamil struggle will rise again and it could take more desperate forms. The fact that the Sinhalese army feels compelled to hold Tamil youth prisoners in military camps, and according to defence ministry spokesperson Lakshman Hullugalle, even up to two years if necessary, is an acknowledgement of this possibility.
The defeat of the Tigers, one of the most powerful Liberation armies in the world which controlled Northern and Eastern parts of Sri Lanka, does come as a shock. How was the Sinhalese government able to defeat a disciplined armed force, with substantial support amongst the Tamil population? While international intervention, such as military support to the Sinhala government by imperialist countries such as the UK and Israel are factors that weighed against the Tigers, the strategy of the LTTE itself needs to come under scrutiny, particularly by those very Tamil youth who will continue the struggle for Tamil self-determination.
While the LTTE has carried out a heroic struggle for the self-determination of the Tamil people of Sri Lanka, one of the main limitations of the LTTE was that it primarily pursued a military strategy and not a political strategy based on mobilising the Tamil masses and building solidarity amongst the Sinhalese and Muslim populations in the rest of the island. The militarisation of the struggle by the LTTE also resulted in human rights violations of Tamils by the LTTE in Tiger controlled areas. The centralised and hierarchical military structures, and the refusal to accommodate different political views and currents which exist (until today) within the movement for Tamil self-determination, all contributed to weakening the Tamil liberation struggle.
As Australian socialist and solidarity activist for Tamil self-determination Chris Slee, writing in Green Left Weekly points out, the military strategy pursued by the LTTE also led to the alienation of potential allies. The LTTE was unable to build strong alliances with any sections of the Sinhala and Muslim populations. As Slee notes, “The Tigers sometimes disregarded the need to win support among Sinhalese workers, peasants and students in southern Sri Lanka for the right of Tamils to national self-determination. This also applied to the Tamil-speaking Muslims of eastern Sri Lanka. The absence of a mass anti-war movement in southern Sri Lanka is a key obstacle to the success of the Tamil self-determination struggle. The LTTE has been willing to negotiate with Sinhalese political leaders whenever they showed any signs of wanting to reach a peaceful solution. But the LTTE has not made a serious effort to get its message directly to the Sinhalese masses, bypassing the politicians whose promises of peace have been deceptive.”
While the lack of a strong anti-war movement in southern Sri Lanka primarily reflects the weakness and political limitations of the Sri Lankan left, the military strategy of the LTTE and the tactics which flowed from this, such as the bombing campaigns in the South which killed civilians, have also alienated the Sri Lankan masses from supporting the Tamil struggle for self-determination.
While our main focus has to be building the international solidarity campaign to free the Tamil population imprisoned in the Sinhala army camps, for the withdrawal of the Sinhala army from Tamil territory and putting pressure on the Sinhala government for a political settlement to the Tamil question, the left especially in Sri Lanka and within the Tamil population, has the responsibility to provide a critical framework to develop a political strategy to continue and renew the Tamil struggle for self-determination. This does not mean relinquishing support of the right of Tamil people under occupation to take up arms against an occupying Sinhala army. In the current situation, however, emphasis on political struggles and campaigns is clearly to the advantage of the Tamil fighters and peoples, and this will also be the case in the mid-term.
“To save the lives of our people is the need of the hour. Mindful of this, we have already announced to the world our position to silence our guns to save our people," said Selvarasa Pathmanathan, the head of LTTE’s International Diplomatic Relations on May 17, thus flagging the military defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. While the military defeat of the LTTE does not necessarily mean its demise, and it most certainly does not represent the end of the struggle for Tamil self-determination in Sri Lanka, nevertheless it is a major setback to the struggle for a Tamil Eelam.
And while calls for a political settlement of the conflict must be supported, the possibility of a genuine political settlement, i.e. peace with justice, is probably far less likely today than when the Tigers were still a powerful military force willing to negotiate a political settlement. The Tigers are in a far weaker position to negotiate a political settlement for a liberated Tamil homeland today, than they have been in previous years.
At the same time, the Sinhalese government victory is a veritable double-edged sword. The Tamil struggle will rise again and it could take more desperate forms. The fact that the Sinhalese army feels compelled to hold Tamil youth prisoners in military camps, and according to defence ministry spokesperson Lakshman Hullugalle, even up to two years if necessary, is an acknowledgement of this possibility.
The defeat of the Tigers, one of the most powerful Liberation armies in the world which controlled Northern and Eastern parts of Sri Lanka, does come as a shock. How was the Sinhalese government able to defeat a disciplined armed force, with substantial support amongst the Tamil population? While international intervention, such as military support to the Sinhala government by imperialist countries such as the UK and Israel are factors that weighed against the Tigers, the strategy of the LTTE itself needs to come under scrutiny, particularly by those very Tamil youth who will continue the struggle for Tamil self-determination.
While the LTTE has carried out a heroic struggle for the self-determination of the Tamil people of Sri Lanka, one of the main limitations of the LTTE was that it primarily pursued a military strategy and not a political strategy based on mobilising the Tamil masses and building solidarity amongst the Sinhalese and Muslim populations in the rest of the island. The militarisation of the struggle by the LTTE also resulted in human rights violations of Tamils by the LTTE in Tiger controlled areas. The centralised and hierarchical military structures, and the refusal to accommodate different political views and currents which exist (until today) within the movement for Tamil self-determination, all contributed to weakening the Tamil liberation struggle.
As Australian socialist and solidarity activist for Tamil self-determination Chris Slee, writing in Green Left Weekly points out, the military strategy pursued by the LTTE also led to the alienation of potential allies. The LTTE was unable to build strong alliances with any sections of the Sinhala and Muslim populations. As Slee notes, “The Tigers sometimes disregarded the need to win support among Sinhalese workers, peasants and students in southern Sri Lanka for the right of Tamils to national self-determination. This also applied to the Tamil-speaking Muslims of eastern Sri Lanka. The absence of a mass anti-war movement in southern Sri Lanka is a key obstacle to the success of the Tamil self-determination struggle. The LTTE has been willing to negotiate with Sinhalese political leaders whenever they showed any signs of wanting to reach a peaceful solution. But the LTTE has not made a serious effort to get its message directly to the Sinhalese masses, bypassing the politicians whose promises of peace have been deceptive.”
While the lack of a strong anti-war movement in southern Sri Lanka primarily reflects the weakness and political limitations of the Sri Lankan left, the military strategy of the LTTE and the tactics which flowed from this, such as the bombing campaigns in the South which killed civilians, have also alienated the Sri Lankan masses from supporting the Tamil struggle for self-determination.
While our main focus has to be building the international solidarity campaign to free the Tamil population imprisoned in the Sinhala army camps, for the withdrawal of the Sinhala army from Tamil territory and putting pressure on the Sinhala government for a political settlement to the Tamil question, the left especially in Sri Lanka and within the Tamil population, has the responsibility to provide a critical framework to develop a political strategy to continue and renew the Tamil struggle for self-determination. This does not mean relinquishing support of the right of Tamil people under occupation to take up arms against an occupying Sinhala army. In the current situation, however, emphasis on political struggles and campaigns is clearly to the advantage of the Tamil fighters and peoples, and this will also be the case in the mid-term.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Thoroughly Modern Marx
The economic crisis and the imploding of ‘the faith’, i.e., of the neo-liberal orthodoxies peddled by the likes of Milton Friedman, has seen a resurgence of interest in Karl Marx with a sharp increase in worldwide sales of Das Kapital (one lone German publisher sold thousands of copies in 2008, compared with 100 the year before). Marx, as a thinker, was well ahead of his times. He accurately foresaw many of the fateful factors that would give rise to today’s global economic crisis: what he called the “contradictions” inherent in a world comprised of competitive markets, commodity production, and financial speculation.
The deregulation of the finance sector has been blamed for the current crisis and there have been calls for increased regulation. But deregulation was not the whim of individual governments. It was generalised as a mechanism to increase profit levels. As Marx argued in Das Kapital, speculation is inherent in the functioning of capitalism, and the bankers act and have acted, in unison with the industrialists.
Over the past 30 years the frequency of bursting financial bubbles has increased as we have experienced the biggest ever increase of what Marx called ‘fictitious’ capital, in the history of capitalism. When firms invest in purely financial assets they are deciding to invest in /claims /on new value and profit. This sort of investment in itself adds nothing to the mass of value added.
But beneath this excess of fictitious capital, real profits began to dry up, and another reality expressed by Karl Marx came into play: "The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit." Credit, had extended "the restricted consumption of the masses" in the industrialised countries, for a while while real wages were driven down or stagnated, but increasingly the credit couldn't be repaid.
The current cycle of over-production is based on the expansion of productivity and production and the decline in purchasing power. This surplus in production was fed primarily by Asia, and Asian commodities flooded the world.
Governments around the world have no clear strategies to resolve the crisis. Even the partial solutions they put forward to solve one aspect or a particular manifestation of the crisis, exacerbates another aspect of the crisis. For example, industrialised countries converted agricultural food production to producing biofuels to deal with the potential shortages in oil resources. This contributed to a shortage in food production and the food price crisis in 2008. Attempts to intensify oil exploration and conventional fuels such as coal will exacerbate the environmental crisis that threatens the very survival of the planet.
The massive state intervention seen in the last few months, of nationalisation and financial bailouts to save the skins of the capitalist class at the expense of massive public indebtedness of working people and the poor, has as yet not been able to stop the slide. Meanwhile we are also seeing a rapid increase in acquisitions, leading to a new round of unprecedented levels of capital concentration.
If the current restructuring the capitalist system continues down the same road, there will be enormous productive and social costs and the already fragile sustainability of the environment may suffer even more damage.
The crisis is systemic and represents the crisis of an entire model of capitalist development, including of neo-liberal capitalism. This global crisis also has a crucial environmental dimension: that of climate change and global warming. Third World countries are the most vulnerable, already suffering severe impacts.
The deregulation of the finance sector has been blamed for the current crisis and there have been calls for increased regulation. But deregulation was not the whim of individual governments. It was generalised as a mechanism to increase profit levels. As Marx argued in Das Kapital, speculation is inherent in the functioning of capitalism, and the bankers act and have acted, in unison with the industrialists.
Over the past 30 years the frequency of bursting financial bubbles has increased as we have experienced the biggest ever increase of what Marx called ‘fictitious’ capital, in the history of capitalism. When firms invest in purely financial assets they are deciding to invest in /claims /on new value and profit. This sort of investment in itself adds nothing to the mass of value added.
But beneath this excess of fictitious capital, real profits began to dry up, and another reality expressed by Karl Marx came into play: "The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit." Credit, had extended "the restricted consumption of the masses" in the industrialised countries, for a while while real wages were driven down or stagnated, but increasingly the credit couldn't be repaid.
The current cycle of over-production is based on the expansion of productivity and production and the decline in purchasing power. This surplus in production was fed primarily by Asia, and Asian commodities flooded the world.
Governments around the world have no clear strategies to resolve the crisis. Even the partial solutions they put forward to solve one aspect or a particular manifestation of the crisis, exacerbates another aspect of the crisis. For example, industrialised countries converted agricultural food production to producing biofuels to deal with the potential shortages in oil resources. This contributed to a shortage in food production and the food price crisis in 2008. Attempts to intensify oil exploration and conventional fuels such as coal will exacerbate the environmental crisis that threatens the very survival of the planet.
The massive state intervention seen in the last few months, of nationalisation and financial bailouts to save the skins of the capitalist class at the expense of massive public indebtedness of working people and the poor, has as yet not been able to stop the slide. Meanwhile we are also seeing a rapid increase in acquisitions, leading to a new round of unprecedented levels of capital concentration.
If the current restructuring the capitalist system continues down the same road, there will be enormous productive and social costs and the already fragile sustainability of the environment may suffer even more damage.
The crisis is systemic and represents the crisis of an entire model of capitalist development, including of neo-liberal capitalism. This global crisis also has a crucial environmental dimension: that of climate change and global warming. Third World countries are the most vulnerable, already suffering severe impacts.
Economic Crisis Hits Asia Hard
The impact of the crisis in the industrialised countries was transmitted to the economies of Asia with rapid speed. The initial impact was marked by sudden reversals of capital flows, plunging stock markets and even depreciating currencies, followed by region-wide declines in exports and industrial production. This has triggered widespread factory closures, rising unemployment, and lowering of real wages.
The latest World Bank forecasts are that the global economy will shrink by 1.7% in 2009. Trade volumes would drop a record 6.1 percent from 2008, led by a steep decline in the trade of manufactured goods, the largest contraction in 80 years, i.e., since the Great Depression. The trends in the industrialised countries will continue to determine the health of the Asian economies.
The myth that Asia was decoupled was quickly debunked. The entire model of development, of partial industrialisation of the Newly Industrialising Countries (or NICs) model, was export driven and export dependent. Growth rates in the region plummeted in 2008 and will continue to drop in 2009. According to Asian Development Bank figures GDP rates in Asia have dropped from 9.5% in 2007, to 6.3% in 2008, to 3.4% predicted in 2009. The hardest hit are the most export dependent economies: In Singapore the economy is predicted to shrink by 5% this year; Hongkong China growth is forecast at -2%; Taiwan -4%; South Korea -3%.
For the Philippines, the IMF revised its growth projections from 2.25% in 2009 to zero growth. As a reflection of contracting economies, exports fell 39.1% from February 2008 to 2009. It is expected to drop 13-15% in 2009, while imports are expected to drop by 12-14%.
Increasing unemployment
The most immediate and serious impact are retrenchments, especially in export driven industries such as electronics, as well as reduction in remittances of overseas migrant workers. This also means that the first blows are hitting women workers, given that in the electronics sector in the region, 3/5 are women workers.
This pattern of increasing unemployment is being repeated, to varying degrees, in countries in the region. According to 2009 ILO research in Indonesia some 40,000 workers were retrenchments in the last two months of 2008; Vietnam, 300,000 formal sector workers could be retrenched in 2009. In Asia overall the number of unemployed could spiral by 23 million and by 51 million globally in 2009 alone. Any gains made by working people in Asia, due to partial industrialisation in the last two to three decades, could be wiped out.
The impact of the economic crisis resulting in a rise in job losses, comes after the food price crisis in 2008, where staples, such as rice increased by 400% in some areas in the Philippines. While world food prices have gone down, in many TW countries they are coming down very slowly or not at all. In the Philippines staple food prices are higher than 2007 levels.
Workers and the middle-class hit
For the poor of Asia capitalism has been in crisis for some time now, not being able to provide the basic necessities of life. But what we are seeing as a result of the current crisis is a further intensification of hardship and poverty, especially affecting those sectors that did manage to make some partial gains in the last two to three decades, i.e. low-income workers, and even the middle classes, who are now being affected and find themselves in an increasingly precarious position.
The middle classes, include young college graduates who have traditionally been absorbed into the service sector, are being hit hard. In China, for example, in December 2008, 1.5 million college graduates of the 5.6 million who graduated in 2008 couldn't find work by year-end. There are 4 million from previous years still looking for work. Another 6 million college graduates will enter the workforce in 2009.
Filipino workers face big job losses
An Inquirer article reported that according to economist Benjamin Diokno, 11 million workers could lose their jobs as the crisis hits the Philippines economy in 2009. In 2008, according to ILO researchers, some 250,000 workers in plant and machine operation and assembly were retrenched. If workers in electronics and garment and textiles are included the total number could be well over 300,000 retrenched last year, mostly since October when the economic crisis hit.
Some of the industries hardest hit so far are garments, textiles and electronics. Women account for 72.3% of the work force in the electronics and 86.5% in the garments sector. The Calabazon area has been hardest hit. Seven to eight out of ten laid off workers in the export processing zones (EPZs) are women. Workers in the EPZs are also suffering big reductions in wage incomes due to compressed work week schemes, with women workers only allowed to work for two to three days per week.
Meanwhile thousands of OFWs are returning home as factories close overseas. Those most affected include factory workers in Taiwan and domestic workers in Singapore, Hongkong and Macau, a majority of whom are women. And workers who are still employed face wage cuts as a result of reduced working hours, suspension of implementation of wage orders, contractualization and outsourcing, as well as cutbacks in overtime and holidays.
The DOLE figures contradict the independent research data, claiming that only some 40,000 workers were laid-off in 2008. This under-representation of the impact of the crisis on unemployment is alarming, as it signifies the government’s refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of the economic situation facing the country and its people.
In the 2009 budget, the Philippines government would spend P7,391.54 per person for debt servicing while allotting only P2,050.98 per person for education, P301.52 for health, P57.48 for housing and P112.80 for social services. In a crisis situation, when large-scale economic stimulus to boost the national economy through public expenditures is required, such a budget is grossly inadequate. It’s a ‘business as usual’ budget and the continuation of the anti-people neoliberal economic policies that this government and the political establishment of this country is still wedded to.
The latest World Bank forecasts are that the global economy will shrink by 1.7% in 2009. Trade volumes would drop a record 6.1 percent from 2008, led by a steep decline in the trade of manufactured goods, the largest contraction in 80 years, i.e., since the Great Depression. The trends in the industrialised countries will continue to determine the health of the Asian economies.
The myth that Asia was decoupled was quickly debunked. The entire model of development, of partial industrialisation of the Newly Industrialising Countries (or NICs) model, was export driven and export dependent. Growth rates in the region plummeted in 2008 and will continue to drop in 2009. According to Asian Development Bank figures GDP rates in Asia have dropped from 9.5% in 2007, to 6.3% in 2008, to 3.4% predicted in 2009. The hardest hit are the most export dependent economies: In Singapore the economy is predicted to shrink by 5% this year; Hongkong China growth is forecast at -2%; Taiwan -4%; South Korea -3%.
For the Philippines, the IMF revised its growth projections from 2.25% in 2009 to zero growth. As a reflection of contracting economies, exports fell 39.1% from February 2008 to 2009. It is expected to drop 13-15% in 2009, while imports are expected to drop by 12-14%.
Increasing unemployment
The most immediate and serious impact are retrenchments, especially in export driven industries such as electronics, as well as reduction in remittances of overseas migrant workers. This also means that the first blows are hitting women workers, given that in the electronics sector in the region, 3/5 are women workers.
This pattern of increasing unemployment is being repeated, to varying degrees, in countries in the region. According to 2009 ILO research in Indonesia some 40,000 workers were retrenchments in the last two months of 2008; Vietnam, 300,000 formal sector workers could be retrenched in 2009. In Asia overall the number of unemployed could spiral by 23 million and by 51 million globally in 2009 alone. Any gains made by working people in Asia, due to partial industrialisation in the last two to three decades, could be wiped out.
The impact of the economic crisis resulting in a rise in job losses, comes after the food price crisis in 2008, where staples, such as rice increased by 400% in some areas in the Philippines. While world food prices have gone down, in many TW countries they are coming down very slowly or not at all. In the Philippines staple food prices are higher than 2007 levels.
Workers and the middle-class hit
For the poor of Asia capitalism has been in crisis for some time now, not being able to provide the basic necessities of life. But what we are seeing as a result of the current crisis is a further intensification of hardship and poverty, especially affecting those sectors that did manage to make some partial gains in the last two to three decades, i.e. low-income workers, and even the middle classes, who are now being affected and find themselves in an increasingly precarious position.
The middle classes, include young college graduates who have traditionally been absorbed into the service sector, are being hit hard. In China, for example, in December 2008, 1.5 million college graduates of the 5.6 million who graduated in 2008 couldn't find work by year-end. There are 4 million from previous years still looking for work. Another 6 million college graduates will enter the workforce in 2009.
Filipino workers face big job losses
An Inquirer article reported that according to economist Benjamin Diokno, 11 million workers could lose their jobs as the crisis hits the Philippines economy in 2009. In 2008, according to ILO researchers, some 250,000 workers in plant and machine operation and assembly were retrenched. If workers in electronics and garment and textiles are included the total number could be well over 300,000 retrenched last year, mostly since October when the economic crisis hit.
Some of the industries hardest hit so far are garments, textiles and electronics. Women account for 72.3% of the work force in the electronics and 86.5% in the garments sector. The Calabazon area has been hardest hit. Seven to eight out of ten laid off workers in the export processing zones (EPZs) are women. Workers in the EPZs are also suffering big reductions in wage incomes due to compressed work week schemes, with women workers only allowed to work for two to three days per week.
Meanwhile thousands of OFWs are returning home as factories close overseas. Those most affected include factory workers in Taiwan and domestic workers in Singapore, Hongkong and Macau, a majority of whom are women. And workers who are still employed face wage cuts as a result of reduced working hours, suspension of implementation of wage orders, contractualization and outsourcing, as well as cutbacks in overtime and holidays.
The DOLE figures contradict the independent research data, claiming that only some 40,000 workers were laid-off in 2008. This under-representation of the impact of the crisis on unemployment is alarming, as it signifies the government’s refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of the economic situation facing the country and its people.
In the 2009 budget, the Philippines government would spend P7,391.54 per person for debt servicing while allotting only P2,050.98 per person for education, P301.52 for health, P57.48 for housing and P112.80 for social services. In a crisis situation, when large-scale economic stimulus to boost the national economy through public expenditures is required, such a budget is grossly inadequate. It’s a ‘business as usual’ budget and the continuation of the anti-people neoliberal economic policies that this government and the political establishment of this country is still wedded to.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Socialist feminist revival: If not now, when?
There is a revival of socialist feminism in Latin America, spearheaded by the Venezuelan and Cuban revolutions.
I just returned from a workshop on gender-based violence organised by the Ministry of Women's Affairs in Venezuela and the UNDP. Speakers at the workshop included Maria Leon, Minister of Women's Affairs and Nora Casteneda President of Banmujer or Bank for the Development of Women. The two women explained the gains made by women as a result of Bolivarian socialist revolution in Venezuela. A record which was truly amazing in the attempts made in empowering women towards achieving gender equality, reported candidly by both women, who also outlined the challenges women in that country have as yet to overcome.
The Bolivarian constitution is the first in the South (and possibly the world) to recognise women's housework as a legitimate economic activity producing wealth and contributing to the social welfare of the population: "The State will recognise household chores as an economic activity that creates added value, produces wealth and social welfare. Housewives have the right to social security according to the law." (Article 88) As Maria Leon explained in Article 88 "the work of all previous generations of women are also recognised and valued".
In March 2007 the right of women to live a life free of violence became an organic law enacted by the National Assembly of Venezuela. Now the law must be effectively implemented. This includes setting up special courts or legal units to handle violence against women cases across the country, with some 19 courts already set up covering all regions. These courts were described as 'new institutions of the Venezuelan state to eradicate violence against women'. The first courts were on violence against women were set up in Caracas on June 27, 2008.
These courts have the authority to temporarily arrest perpetrators of violence against women and prohibit them from leaving the country. The first dates for the trial should be set ten to twenty days after the act of violence, with sentencing on the same day with penalty and fines. Appeals processes exist. These courts were also described as 'specialised organs on violence against women' and as 'weapons in the struggle against violence against women'.
According to Maria Leon, "Talking is not enough. Laws are not enough. Institutions are not enough. We need a cultural change in our views and outlook." This required mobilising women to become "a real force, a deterrent force, an army to combat violence against women and to change the notion of women as battered victims and weak human beings". To mobilise women some 25,000 'points of encounter' for women are being set up where women have easy access to information and services without cumbersome requirements and bureaucratic regulations. These 25,000 'points of encounter' will consist of at least ten women, who will then organise more women to create "an army to combat violence against women ... the point is not only to decrease violence against women, but to eradicate it".
The Ministry for Women's Affairs and Gender Equality was set up on March 8, 2009. One of the first activities of the new Ministry was to organise a congress of women to consult women on the plans and work of the Ministry. A key objective of the Ministry is to advice the President on 'human development with gender equality' and the 'active participation in the defence and guarantee of women's rights in the revolutionary transformation of the country'. Linked to this a key task of the Ministry is to 'design the criteria for allocating financial and social resources and investments targeting women, especially those who are marginalised and excluded, suffering discrimination, exploitation and violence ... in order to promote a socialist production model with gender equity in the socialisation of the means of production'.
Maria Leon and other Venezuelan women speakers all emphasised the importance of the local popular power structures, the commune councils, in the mobilisation and empowerment of women. According to Leon "Peoples power, popular power, is most important [and] 70% of the commune councils are headed by women".
Nora Castaneda provided updates on the work of Banmujer. Banmujer is a key political instrument of the revolution in the economic and political empowerment of poor and ethnic minority women. Since 2001, Banmujer has redistributed wealth of around US$179 million in 106,616 microcredits to poor women. In 2008 alone it approved a total of 13,689 microcredit loans worth US$35 million.
Meanwhile in Cuba pathbreaking proposals and measures are being advocated and discussed amongst the entire population to advance gender equality in relation to sexual rights, spearheaded by the National Center for Sexual Education (CENESEX). According to CENESEX Director Mariela Castro this year’s celebration of International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia will be held in Havana on Saturday, May 16. It will be dedicated not only to youth, but also to the family, “so that fathers and mothers can better understand their homosexual or transsexual children.”
I just returned from a workshop on gender-based violence organised by the Ministry of Women's Affairs in Venezuela and the UNDP. Speakers at the workshop included Maria Leon, Minister of Women's Affairs and Nora Casteneda President of Banmujer or Bank for the Development of Women. The two women explained the gains made by women as a result of Bolivarian socialist revolution in Venezuela. A record which was truly amazing in the attempts made in empowering women towards achieving gender equality, reported candidly by both women, who also outlined the challenges women in that country have as yet to overcome.
The Bolivarian constitution is the first in the South (and possibly the world) to recognise women's housework as a legitimate economic activity producing wealth and contributing to the social welfare of the population: "The State will recognise household chores as an economic activity that creates added value, produces wealth and social welfare. Housewives have the right to social security according to the law." (Article 88) As Maria Leon explained in Article 88 "the work of all previous generations of women are also recognised and valued".
In March 2007 the right of women to live a life free of violence became an organic law enacted by the National Assembly of Venezuela. Now the law must be effectively implemented. This includes setting up special courts or legal units to handle violence against women cases across the country, with some 19 courts already set up covering all regions. These courts were described as 'new institutions of the Venezuelan state to eradicate violence against women'. The first courts were on violence against women were set up in Caracas on June 27, 2008.
These courts have the authority to temporarily arrest perpetrators of violence against women and prohibit them from leaving the country. The first dates for the trial should be set ten to twenty days after the act of violence, with sentencing on the same day with penalty and fines. Appeals processes exist. These courts were also described as 'specialised organs on violence against women' and as 'weapons in the struggle against violence against women'.
According to Maria Leon, "Talking is not enough. Laws are not enough. Institutions are not enough. We need a cultural change in our views and outlook." This required mobilising women to become "a real force, a deterrent force, an army to combat violence against women and to change the notion of women as battered victims and weak human beings". To mobilise women some 25,000 'points of encounter' for women are being set up where women have easy access to information and services without cumbersome requirements and bureaucratic regulations. These 25,000 'points of encounter' will consist of at least ten women, who will then organise more women to create "an army to combat violence against women ... the point is not only to decrease violence against women, but to eradicate it".
The Ministry for Women's Affairs and Gender Equality was set up on March 8, 2009. One of the first activities of the new Ministry was to organise a congress of women to consult women on the plans and work of the Ministry. A key objective of the Ministry is to advice the President on 'human development with gender equality' and the 'active participation in the defence and guarantee of women's rights in the revolutionary transformation of the country'. Linked to this a key task of the Ministry is to 'design the criteria for allocating financial and social resources and investments targeting women, especially those who are marginalised and excluded, suffering discrimination, exploitation and violence ... in order to promote a socialist production model with gender equity in the socialisation of the means of production'.
Maria Leon and other Venezuelan women speakers all emphasised the importance of the local popular power structures, the commune councils, in the mobilisation and empowerment of women. According to Leon "Peoples power, popular power, is most important [and] 70% of the commune councils are headed by women".
Nora Castaneda provided updates on the work of Banmujer. Banmujer is a key political instrument of the revolution in the economic and political empowerment of poor and ethnic minority women. Since 2001, Banmujer has redistributed wealth of around US$179 million in 106,616 microcredits to poor women. In 2008 alone it approved a total of 13,689 microcredit loans worth US$35 million.
Meanwhile in Cuba pathbreaking proposals and measures are being advocated and discussed amongst the entire population to advance gender equality in relation to sexual rights, spearheaded by the National Center for Sexual Education (CENESEX). According to CENESEX Director Mariela Castro this year’s celebration of International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia will be held in Havana on Saturday, May 16. It will be dedicated not only to youth, but also to the family, “so that fathers and mothers can better understand their homosexual or transsexual children.”
The National Assembly (Cuba’s parliament) will include in its work agenda an initiative to reform the national Family Code, which has been effective in Cuba since 1975 and contains proposals on gender identity and rights of “sexual minorities.” The initiatives include the legal recognition of the same sex unions, whereby they will enjoy the same rights as consensually united heterosexual couples.
In June 2008 a resolution of the Ministry of Public Health leganised the performing of sex change operations on transsexual persons. Resolution 126 establishes the creation of a center for integral healthcare for people who are transsexual, which will be the sole institution in the country authorized to carry out total or partial medical sex change treatments.
This is a far cry from the former Soviet project with its idealisation of motherhood or anything in the experience of the Chinese revolution. And it is a distinct trend in the opposite direction to what is taking place in a number of industrialized countries in the West, the US and Australia included, where the trend is to take away a range of even formal rights won in gender equality and related sexual rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
