By JOSE MARIA SISON
I. Economic Power Makes Political Power
It is beyond doubt that economic power makes political power. A political system is possible and can last only because it is based on an economic foundation, on the mode of production that gives sustenance to the political ideas and institutions in the superstructure of a society. With this basic assumption, we may start to make a comprehensive presentation of the anatomy of Philippine politics.
However, we cannot really make a profound critique of Philippine politics if we do not grasp the historical principle that the masses of our people in a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country can build up their own political power in the countryside in the course of a struggle entailing the area-by-area and step-by-step elimination of the political and economic power of the local exploiters and local bullies, without as yet being in full control of the national economy. We keep this principle in mind even as our topic is the anatomy of Philippine politics as it is now.
To know well a political system or a particular form of society, it is necessary to comprehend the basic political contradictions that are at work, emerging from basic contradictions of socio-economic classes even if these should at first appear as being in equilibrium. If we try to make a presentation of the Philippine political system without considering its basic socio-economic contradictions, then we would be merely trying to depict a lifeless skeleton seeming to have the quality of permanence. It is the relentless conflict of classes in our society that keeps our politics dynamic and impermanent. The very existence of class exploitation gives away the fact of class struggle, no matter how suppressed or obscured by one means or another, and also gives away the prospect of social revolution, no matter how much it is restricted by the state power of the ruling classes.
If we are interested in the anatomy of Philippine politics as if it were a dead or passive structure, all that we have to do now is to read and reread the Philippine Constitution. So, we would just say that we have a republican and presidential form of government which has three basic branches-executive, legislative and judicial-in equilibrium under a rule of check and balance; that the Filipino electorate has the democratic right to vote in and vote out men in the government; that electoral choice is mainly provided by a two-party system ensured by a constitutional provision on electoral inspectors; and that in-between and during elections, the Filipino people are formally gifted with a bill of rights that is supposed to allow them to act in and speak out their interests collectively and individually.
But, in these turbulent times, we cannot afford to be naive and superficial. We cannot refer dogmatically to formal rights and say that sure enough we have democracy in this country. We have to investigate the national and social reality. Especially at a time that more and more people are getting dissatisfied with the political system and its political processes, it becomes more compelling in our part to look into the most vital struggles that are now severely straining the ability of the system to contain.
In other words, we have now to see Philippine politics in the light of fundamental issues and demands that divide social classes and political aggrupations daily driven on the course of irreconcilable disagreement or conflict.
II. The Class Basis of Political Tendencies and Trends
We have to have a clear perception and knowledge of the economic classes within our semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. Their basic demands are of a political character, involving relations of members within the same class, relations between classes, relations within the nation as a whole and relations with other nations. Political tendencies, trends, issues, and possibilities are founded on these classes existing and operating within Philippine society. What can sustain a political movement, or a political system is a definite economic class or an alliance of economic classes that have certain interests or that have certain aspirations and demands.
It is not possible, in a class-divided society like that of the Philippines, for all classes to have common or similar interests to protect and advance. The fact is that some classes are united against other classes because of a basic contradiction of interests. Thus, the diametrical opposition of basic political standpoints.
With regard to the basic struggle for national democracy to which all patriotic Filipinos should be committed, the entire range of social classes in the Philippines is divided into two camps.
There is the camp of those classes who wish to achieve the completion of the national-democratic revolution and there is the opposite camp of those classes interested in the perpetuation of imperialist and feudal power in this country.
The masses of workers and peasants, the intelligentsia, the petty property owners, and nationalist businessmen are interested in the success of the struggle for national democracy.
On the other hand, the imperialists, their comprador agents, their landlord and corrupt bureaucrat allies would rather have semi-colonial and semi-feudal Philippines which they can easily exploit.
The Filipino workers who are enlightened with the most advanced ideas of this era are interested in a national democracy in the Philippines because this project rejects and supplants the political power of foreign monopoly capitalism and landlordism. Because this means actual sovereignty and genuine independence, Filipino-owned industrialization, a thoroughgoing land reform and the opportunity of the working class to establish and build up the democratic power of the people and lead in the march to social revolution and progress.
The Filipino peasants are interested in national democracy in the same way that the workers are, but they are most interested in national democracy because it breaks feudal chains and provides them the substance of freedom.
All other patriotic segments of the population are interested in national democracy because they are adversely affected by the ill state of the nation and principally by the prevailing interests of the big foreign businessmen, the compradors, the landlords and the corrupt bureaucrats.
III. The State as an Instrument of Ruling Class Interests
The present state in the Philippines signifies the long-drawn rule of certain classes over other classes. The class interests that today dictate the state are those of the imperialists, compradors and the landlords. The theory is bandied about that it is the “ordinary citizens” who have created the present state and who can use it as their own instrument. But this is contrary to the fact that the state is merely the executor of the will and interests of those exploitative classes ruling our society today.
A time has yet to come when the nature and character of the state is changed by the national-democratic movement. The present state is an instrument of the ruling classes to command order and submission to the existing class relations in Philippine society even if these are disadvantageous and antagonistic to the class interests of the vast majority of the people. The power of the state to command lies in its essence as an institution of violence. What does the state have the armed forces, the police, courts and prisons for, if not to keep the peace and order that preserves a particular social order? When all suasive means have failed to mislead or appease the oppressed people, the coercive power of the state is ruthlessly used by the exploiting classes to pacify the national and social unrest that arises.
The nature and character of the present state in the Philippines can easily be seen also in the regular operations of its civil bureaucracy, its executive, legislative and judicial branches. Look at the unfair executive agreements and treaties made with the U.S. government. Look at the program of the government and the kind of contracts it expedites. Look at the prevailing interests of congressmen and senators in their legislative deliberations. Look at the pitiful common man who cannot afford the cost of litigation in courts. There are many more things we can bring up that can expose which classes are the subject of the pacifactory or concessionary efforts of the state which is primarily interested in the preservation of the ruling classes.
We have today a state that serves imperialist and feudal interest and opposes the national democratic interests of the Filipino people. And yet it is still pontificated that the Philippine government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
IV. The Elections and Political Parties
The elections are supposed to be a decisive process or measure by which the Philippine political system is to be established and preserved. Elections are supposed to allow the people to choose their representatives democratically. But the question that should be propounded by serious students of the Philippine political system is this: Is the electorate actually allowed to make a real and fundamental choice, say, a choice between political parties and candidates who stand for national democracy and those who stand for opposite interests?
It is superficial to say that a basic political choice is made possible to the electorate with the mere existence of two parties. A study of the platforms and the principal driving forces behind the Nacionalista Party and the Liberal Party shows that they are basically the same.
Political campaigns require heavy financial support. It is standard operating procedure for the two parties to collect from moneyed interests, imperialist comprador and landlord. Nationalist businessmen give modest financial support to the political parties and candidates, but they are not as hard-driving a force as the imperialists and the compradors who have the greater capability for financing electoral campaigns.
The basic similarity of standpoint of the two parties is such that big, vested interests play it safe by giving financial support to both parties and all candidates. Whoever wins, it is still the vested interests that prevail.
It is not only the fact that the electors go through the motion of voting for their candidates that create the illusion that a free and democratic choice of leadership is possible in this country. It is also the fact that there are so many politicians who style themselves as men of humble origins and as men of the masses. And yet it is clear that they run for public offices because they themselves are members or running dogs of the exploiting classes.
A percipient study of the Philippine politics would reveal that to become a mayor in a municipality, one must ordinarily have the support of the landowners who dictate blocs of passive tenant votes and that of the municipal bourgeoisie which includes the town professionals and the barrio captains who are usually rich peasants as ward leaders.
To run for congressman or governor, one has to get the same kind of classes support that a mayoralty candidate gets on a smaller scale. Within the province, the issues fought out skirt the problem of land although the basic class demand of the majority peasant population in the province is land reform. If it is ever mentioned in electoral campaign, what is skirted is the necessity for the poor peasants or the sharecroppers to band themselves together as a political force independent of the political control by rich peasants and the landlords themselves.
On the national scale, the politicians play it safe by not antagonizing the big, vested interests who are potential or tested campaign contributors or partners in business. The big conservative politicians play to the tune of the ruling class interests. They often do not mind when they discover that certain corporations and business groups put money on both sides of the electoral campaign unless the disparity of support amounts to “non-neutrality.”
The interests of the Filipino “middle class” may at times be orated upon by certain politicians and this would make them appear “progressive”. But all their words are meant to “reconcile” opposing class interests.
The Nacionalista Party and the Liberal Party today monopolize the elections as the organizational instruments of basically the same vested class interests. Even the Progressive Party of the Philippines, which apparently received a great deal of financial support from conservative sources, has shown its utter incapability to beat the electoral machinery of the Liberal Party and Nacionalista Party.
The stability of the two-party system will for some time signify the stability of the regime of the ruling classes. But let us watch with the keenest interest the growing realization by the people that the NP and LP are no different from each other and are not wholesome for the masses of the people. The masses are beginning to demand a new alternative party, truly different from the well-established conservative political parties. They are beginning to see the elections as a farce, as a mere occasion for the vested interests at the top to give the electorate the false illusion of democratic choice from among a highly limited range of personalities who have no basic political differences but who agree on taking personal advantage of their public offices, the winning of which is so expensive that the normal outcome consists of corrupt bureaucrats.
V. The Making of “Public Opinion” and Political Power
Outside of the party machinery and outside of the government facilities that an incumbent government official can use to make his political campaign, there are other instruments which can be used to make “public opinion” and build up political power. There are the mass media and the mass organizations that are always dictated upon by a definite class or some definite classes. These are intermediate instruments in the building of political power and influence either within the established political system or without and against it.
The mass media, newspapers, radio, TV, movies and others are accessible mainly to political personalities and parties that can afford to shoulder the necessary fees and are in a social position to influence the slant of information, programs and opinion campaigns. The ownership of the mass media is, in the first place, in the hands of corporations that are controlled and influenced businesswise by imperialist and reactionary interests.
It takes not a few millions of pesos to finance an electoral campaign under the Philippine political system. There is a curtain of finance that shuts out the political organizations of the working class and peasantry from having an “equal” chance to utilize the reactionary mass media.
The big corporations are themselves organizations of the big, vested interests that can exert a great deal of political influence, especially among their stockholders and among employees who may not as yet be radicalized. These corporations are in turn organized into chambers of commerce and advertisers’ groups which serve as important lobby groups.
Individual big businessmen are leading members of civic clubs, like the Rotary, Lions, Jaycees and other American-style clubs, which include a good number of social-climbing professionals and managers. All these seemingly harmless aggrupations serve as contact points not only for business connections but also for political combinations.
There are organizations of landlords, whether they are sugar and coconut exporters or rice and corn dealers. There are also organizations of big loggers and mining magnates. They serve as political pressure groups on the government, political parties and personalities. Their scope of power is both national and local.
The “middle class” has the professionals’ organizations, highly localized merchants’ associations and community clubs. These serve as channels for “public opinion” from the top. Members of the middle social strata have the special talent for echoing opinion that they derive from the mass media. They are newspaper subscribers, TV watchers, and radio listeners. When it comes to opinion of national significance, they merely echo the dominant going opinion in the mass media. Through their mass organizations they take the initiative of adopting some collective opinion, but this opinion is usually of limited scope and, unwittingly, they merely apply locally the “public opinion” that the big political interests at the center of communications are trying to spread.
At the lower levels of our society, there are the trade union in factories and mines, peasant association in farms, the official barrio councils and neighborhood clubs. But these aggrupations of workers and peasants have various class tendencies.
Among the barrio councils in the Philippines today, the vast majority are still controlled by rich and upper middle peasants who oftentimes are political agents of the landlords and the municipal bourgeoisie. Among peasant associations, there are those controlled by landlords themselves or by their political agents. There are those controlled by rich and middle peasants associations which are controlled by poor peasants and lower middle peasants and are well-led.
In city slums and in the farms, there are special organizations controlled by agencies of the United States government and the Philippine government and by religious corporations. They play the role of restraining the masses from taking part in any serious national democratic movement.
As in the case of the mass media, class analysis must be made in the case of mass organizations. We have to stick to class standpoint in studying even the supposedly lower-class organizations.
The type of mass organizations predominating in the Philippines now is also part of the curtain alienating the true interests of the masses from those of the native oligarchy and imperialism. This curtain also serves to block off the political advance of the working class and the peasantry. The predominating mass organizations which maintain basic allegiance to the ruling class interests are purveyors of wrong ideas misleading the masses.
For the political power of the masses to develop, the working class and the peasantry must recognize their own class interests and struggle for them; and establish and develop mass organizations, a system of public-opinion making and a political party that would genuinely struggle for their own class interests. ●
Originally published in the October 26, 1968 issue of the Collegian, for which Jose Maria Sison served as literary editor in the early 1960s.
Sison founded the Communist Party of the Philippines, in 1968, having applied the theory of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to Philippine history in building the party’s philosophy of national democracy with a socialist perspective. He has been a political refugee in the Netherlands since September 1988.
