FOCUS ON THE PHILIPPINES NO. 18 | 26 JULY 2005

Reclaiming RevolutionWALDEN BELLO, JENINA JOY CHAVEZ, JULIE ANN DELOS REYES, HERBERT DOCENA, MARY LOUMALIG, MARY ANN MANAHAN, JOSEPH PURUGGANAN and LOURDES TORRES

s the clamor for another president’s ouster grows, one wonders why the oneplace where Filipino protesters have removed two sitting presidents before,the corner along Epifanio delos Santos Avenue "EDSA#, stands empty.

The busy crossroads ushered in the “EDSASystem”, a combination of formal electoraldemocracy supplemented by an insurrectionarydimension exercised to legitimize non-electoralchanges in political regimes.1 The EDSA Systembrought in promise, new hopes, and ideals onwhich a nation could have been rebuilt. Moreequitable distribution of wealth and powerthrough centerpiece programs on agrarian reform,anti-political dynasty and multi-party system,social and economic justice, human rights,accountability and transparency in public office,and participation & these and more where theapproximations of ideals immediately after the“EDSA revolution” of 1986.

Yet, despite its built-in mechanism for self-legitimation, the EDSA System has beenrepeatedly undermined by factions of the rulingelite who have been its principal beneficiaries.They have betrayed the ideals of a people seekingsocial justice.

Catapulted to the presidency after the “PeoplePower” uprising, Corazon C. Aquino, exemptedher family’s 6,453-hectare Hacienda Luisita fromland reform and presided over the day-timemassacre of protesting farmers. Instead of payingback the people by substantially spending onsocial programs, she instead chose toautomatically skim off the biggest chunk of theannual budget to repay foreign creditors.

Fidel Ramos, for his part, systematicallydismantled the capacity of the Philippine state tomanage the market, opened up the country’sresources to foreign investors, and sold off publicassets to local and foreign elites. Joseph Estrada,despite his populist posture, carried on Ramos’neo-liberal agenda until his fall for corruptioncharges. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sold off thecountry’s mineral reserves to foreign prospectorsby relaxing laws on their operations andconcentrated on getting a windfall from the US’“war against terror.” 1 Walden Bello Marissa de Guzman, Herbert Docena, and MarylouMalig, The Anti-Development State: The Political Economy of PermanentCrisis in the Philippines, Quezon City: University of the PhilippinesDepartment of Sociology and Focus on the Global South, 2004.

That EDSA remains empty now is because weare choosing to move forward. What has beendismissed as “People Power fatigue” may simplybe a refusal, borne by repeated betrayal, tobecome cannon fodder in the latest round ofintra-elite wars. But it is not necessarily a refusalto once again take to the crossroads of history andtake a different path.

THE FAILED PROMISES

Those who steered the EDSA System failed toaddress the one structural constant that accountsfor the Philippines’ less-than-stellar economicperformance and persistent stagnation: a verynarrow domestic market because purchasingpower resides in a small fraction of thepopulation. In the hope of holding on to theirprivileged positions in the system, the ruling elitesrecoiled from the required redistribution ofpower and wealth that could have expanded thedomestic market and consequently spur sustainedgrowth and development.

With their own power declared no-go zones,the ruling elites instead turned to foreigninvestors, dangling juicy perks and incentives towoo them. These investors, however, demandedvarious special favors in the form of neo-liberallaws and policies that effectively disempoweredthe state, removed support for local industries,workers, and consumers, and deprived it of asignificant source of revenues. And yet, contraryto the promises, investments did not come in indroves. As experienced most acutely at the end ofRamos’ term, many of them just dropped by for aquick buck but left as soon as the grass turnedgreener somewhere else.

Thus, close to twenty years after EDSA I, thePhilippine state lies in tatters, captive towhichever faction happens to occupy the Palace,and more helpless than ever to control, discipline,and harness the private sector towards largersocietal goals. This is a direct consequence of theruling elites’ strategy of surviving at all costs andfending off structural change by all means.

A

FOCUS ON THE PHILIPPINES NO. 18 | 26 JULY 2005 | 2

Instead of redistribution, the past twenty yearswitnessed no dilution in the concentration ofwealth and power. In 1985, the top ten percent ofthe population got 37% of the total income in thecountry; the lowest 20% only received 5%. In2000, the highest ten percent got 36% while thelowest 20% got 5%.2

While poverty incidence has been reducedfrom 45% in 1988 to 30% in 2003,3 this may onlyhave been partly because more and more Filipinoshave found work abroad. The number of overseasFilipino workers almost trebled from 380,000 in1986 to 1,000,000 in 2004. Locally,unemployment remains virtually unchanged, from12% in 1986 to 14% in 2004.4 The Social WeatherStations’ own unemployment figure even puts ithigher at 20%.5 Despite the officially registeredreduction in poverty, 57% of Filipinos stillconsider themselves poor, higher than 55% in1983, when the economy was in crisis during thetwilight of the Marcos dictatorship.6

Not only have the richest Filipinos held on totheir share of the country’s wealth, they have evenentrenched their domination of the government:In 1962, 27% of the representatives in Congresswere classified as upper class. That has jumped toalmost 50% by 2004. In 2001, the average networth of a Representative in the lower house was22 million pesos. For a Senator, it was 59 million.That of the average Filipino: 150,000 pesos.7

Unsurprisingly, as of 2003, only 48% of theoriginal total of land targeted for land reform hasbeen distributed and most of them were public ornon-privately owned lands in the first place;landlords had successfully exempted theirholdings from being redistributed.8

THE CONDITIONS FOR CHANGE

Ultimately, what the Philippines urgently needsnow is a radical redistribution of wealth andpower through measures such as genuine land

2 National Statistics Office, “Total Family Income and Expenditureand Percent Distribution by Income Decile: Reference Year, FamilyIncome and Expenditure Survey,” www.census.gov.ph. Also seeWorld Bank, World Development Report, 1988 and 2005.3 National Statistics Office, “Poverty Incidence of Families,”reference year. See also United Nations Development Program,“Second Philippine Progress Report on the MillenniumDevelopment Goals,” June 2005.4 National Statistics Office, Labor Force Survey,www.census.gov.ph.5 Social Weather Stations, “Second Quarter 2005 Social WeatherSurvey,” www.sws.org.ph6 Social Weather Stations, “Self-rated Poverty: Households who are‘Mahirap’?”, April 1983 to December 2004, www.sws.org.ph.7 Sheila Coronel, “How Representative is Congress?”, PhilippineCenter for Investigative Journalism, March 22-24, 2004.8 Saturnino Borras, Jr., “Questioning the Official CARP LandRedistribution Accomplishment Report and Working Scope,”Presentation to the International Council of Churches Organization"ICCO# Partners’ Research on CARP Scope Validation at the UPCollege of Social Work and Community Development, March 2005.

reform, progressive taxation and transferprograms, diversion of external debt paymentstowards social spending in education, housing,and health, and greater public role in providingservices to the people, among others. Such aredistributive program is a precondition forexpanding the country’s domestic internal marketby increasing people’s purchasing power, which inturn, is a requirement for sustained economicgrowth and development.

It is also a precondition for moving beyondthe Edsa System & or what other writers call“polyarchy” or “low-intensity” democracy & inwhich “people power” has been confined tochoosing between rival ruling elite factions duringperiodic elections structurally designed toentrench the ruling elites’ rule as a class.9 It is anecessary step to achieving substantivedemocracy, a necessary element for fundamentalelectoral reforms needed to attain deeper popularparticipation in the political system.

Real popular legitimacy, in turn, is aprerequisite for a strong democratic stateinsulated from factional elite politics and capableof implementing a strategic social and economicpolicy that is concerned not only with growth andindustrialization but also with social and genderjustice, equity, and ecological sustainability. Theemergence of this state is, consequently, arequirement for the Philippines to survive theperilous waters of the global economic andpolitical system.

Unfortunately, the ruling elite cannot seebeyond their own vested interests as factions or asa class. What the Philippines needs are exactlywhat they will continue to deprive it of. Arroyo’sresignation & both for violating the rules oflimited democracy and for impeding substantivedemocracy &- is a necessary condition for a moreresponsive system of governance. But resignationwill not be enough if her faction will only bereplaced by other factions now at the gates.

THE ALTERNATIVES

What will emerge from the present standoffdepends on the balance of forces in the comingconjuncture. First, the ruling elites may yetsucceed in convening a constitutional conventionor a shift to a parliamentary system but sans afundamental redistribution of power. Both will betantamount to a minor tweaking of the rules ofthe game. Second, Young Turks in the militarymay decide to wrest power for themselves butthey will not last long because of Filipinos’ingrained aversion to military rule. Or an 9 See among others, William Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy:Globalization, US Intervention and Hegemony "Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1996.

FOCUS ON THE PHILIPPINES NO. 18 | 26 JULY 2005 | 3

impeachment process may progress and give wayto a constitutional succession, again with noassurance of substantive change and withremaining threat of political instability.

Truth is, the current political crisis may verywell resolve itself in whatever way using whatevermeans without a real resolution of thefundamental crisis the country faces. Theskepticism over staging another People Power isthere not just because the people offered to sit asthe next president do not appeal to a broadsegment of the population. It is for the most partdue to a sad realization that no matter who sits inMalacañang, things will remain the same.

There is need to build yet a differentalternative or alternatives that go beyond a changeof people in government. They are alternativesthat articulate the basic ideals of EDSA thatremain unfulfilled and the new aspirations peopleacquired while bearing witness to the vagaries ofelites entrenched in our sorry political system.Such alternatives need to be built by broadaffirmation and action, not prepared andpackaged for us by those who purport to knowbetter. In order to prove our respect for thepeople and our faith in genuine democracy, weshould not seek to impose our will nor foist ourchoices on the people. There is need to buildconsensus on, action and movement around thespecifics of reforms and radical changes we wantto see in government and in the country.

These alternatives to be credible must notfall into the games of the elites. In order to beseen as credible alternatives, they should strive todistance themselves from discredited elitefactions who may be the kiss of death for aprogressive movement. Energies should continueto be directed at building strong socialmovements and citizens action that would be thefoundation for genuine democracy and lastingreforms. Taking short-cuts, such as getting seatsin a “transitional council” still dominated by elitefactions can not substitute for & and may in factundermine our efforts in building the movementfor fundamental change.

The elites may have repeatedly successfullysubverted or deflected the insurrectionarytradition that had fired up various “People Power”uprisings through the decades, but it lives on. It isthe one remaining legacy of the EDSA Systemthat we should take pride in and reclaim.

The authors are with Focus on the Global South,a policy research and advocacy institute. Togetherwith the University of the PhilippinesDepartment of Sociology, Focus on the GlobalSouth published the book, The Anti-DevelopmentalState: The Political Economy of Permanent Crisis in thePhilippines.

Focus on the Philippines (FOP) is an electronicnewsletter on Philippine news and issues put out by Focus onthe Global South-Philippine Programme. FOP has currentlyover 600 subscribers. The newsletter tackles broaddevelopment issues like trade and finance, militarization,environment, global governance, multilateral institutions, andUS hegemony among others. FOP is a venue for sharingperspectives and commentaries on the issues that shape ourcountry and inform our respective advocacy work. Wewelcome articles, policy papers, commentaries on Philippinedevelopment issues. We also welcome new subscribers. Pleasesend contributions (in word format) and request forsubscription to josephp@focusphilippines.org orjosephp@focusweb.org.