Every. Single. President.
ACTIVISTS are often asked why they seem to be always at odds with every single president. Let me tell you why. For national democrats, the general answer could be found in how they describe themselves. By “national,” they mean the Philippines’ right to self-determination without foreign intervention, mendicancy and colonial mentality. By “democrat,” they mean the rights and welfare of the majority of farmers, workers, the middle class and entrepreneurs.
The specific answers could be found in the national democratic program. Activists organize people to promote and to win short-term, medium-term and long-term demands in pursuit of this program.
The banner portions of the program are national industrialization and genuine agrarian reform. The outlines of how these would be implemented and their profound impact on eradicating poverty and addressing wealth inequality could be found in the National Democratic Front of the Philippines’ draft Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms, which NDFP peace negotiators and consultants are raring to present to their government counterparts.
For example, partylist Representatives from Anakpawis Partylist and Makabayan Bloc have filed since the time of Crispin Beltran a Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill which organizations of peasants, farm workers and fisherfolk helped draft. It pushes the idea of free land distribution as the single-biggest poverty-alleviation and democracy-building measure the government could adopt.
If enacted into law, GARB will end the reign of greedy and parasitic Big Landlords in the provinces and would deliver two wonderful things at once: liberate peasants from destitution and take away the economic basis of the political power wielded by traditional politicians. No wonder all revolutionaries since 1896 fought for land reform: It will democratize the country.
Through various means, the activists pursue the program for genuine agrarian reform. It measures the government’s claims of being pro-farmer or its agricultural program by this yardstick. Trouble ensues and protests erupt when the president prolongs the reign of the big landlords as in the case of the previous presidents, or pretends to be pro-farmer but actually sides with big landlords as in the case of the current one.
Activists do not begrudge anybody’s right to express admiration for the altruism of big landlords. Their acts of charity are laudable. But charity is no substitute for social justice, which is what genuine agrarian reform is precisely. Neither is free irrigation, which the ruling system could only provide starting this year or 72 years since the birth of the modern republic.
Activists also view the ruling system as rigged in favor of a few and as dominated by institutions and structures that ensure profits for this lucky few at the expense of the majority. Perhaps we have no more graphic illustration of this rigged system than the OFWs who actually flee the country just to have any semblance of fair opportunity. Thus, activists mainly demand system change. This is in stark contrast to other political actors who believe solely on regime change.
Perhaps the biggest difference that sets activists apart is how they view the public, especially the “masa” composed of farmers, workers and the urban poor.
Traditional politicians and their fans look at the “masa” as nothing more than voters who could be bought, sold at minimum wage (or even lower), made to accept “Endo,” deprived of their rights, and given the most substandard and yet expensive public services. Rival traditional politicians and their supporters blame voters for their loss during elections, while the victors say they won blanket approval for their corrupt and fascist ways.
Activists view the “masa” quite differently. They view the “masa” as the heroes of this country and the main forces that drive the nation forward. It is a most fascinating idea, come to think of it. Activists believe that it is time for authentic democracy: Those who build factories, condominiums and malls, those who drive the nation’s main public transport, those who run the palengkes, those who plow the fields, those who work abroad to bring dollars back home, those whose tribes have preserved the mountains for generations — time for this majority to lead the country and to have their aspirations to be on top of the national agenda.
Despite their campaign promises about change, all presidents have preserved the basic features of the corrupt ruling system, kept the rule of big landlords and big business, and perpetuated neocolonial relations with Uncle Sam. The same unequal relations that we have found out — quite painfully — to be meaningless and worthless in protecting our islands and seas from an aggressive China. In the logic of activists — which is basically the logic of nationalism and democracy — these presidents earned the ire of the public and their national-democratic movement.
Not only do activists believe in the glorious revolutionary heritage of Filipinos and in our capacity to unite amid challenges. As any activist would tell you, national-democrats never stop challenging our people to look beyond past and present political superstars, icons and superheroes. Not out of hatred, but out of an idea that real democracy means the will and interest of the majority of the people.
In every battle with every single president on every single issue, the activist teaches herself, her friends, her family, her community and her nation of the power of collective, democratic action. Every rally, picket, campaign, Lakbayan, Cordillera Day, concert, fluvial protest, barricade, a strike, a people’s uprising — it is a preview of far greater and more consequential things we could achieve together as a people in the future.
True, activists have fought against every single president. But allow me now to complete the thought. Activists have fought against every single president and they will continue to do so as long as presidents do not serve the national and democratic interests of the people.