Challenging traditional politics

IN this country where governance is defined more by our public officials’ narrow self-interest of ensuring their access to perks and privileges, even as charges of corruption and malfeasance spare no one, not even the Supreme Court and the Office of the President, a disillusioned public comes as no surprise.

Amid this degenerate political culture, the hope and assertion for new politics — the kind where no politicking sidesteps reforms to resolve the political crisis — must ever remain potent, said the Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party. At a forum celebrating its 10th anniversary last Friday, the party-list group urged the public to reject traditional politics and to push for new politics, particularly with another presidential election in sight.

“The condition is not so hopeless that the country has to make do with candidates that would only worsen the situation,” said Ronald Llamas, Akbayan president. “They should position themselves vis-à-vis radical, political and economic reforms that must be taken even before the 2010 elections.”

Emphasizing the pressing need for a new kind of politics, University of the Philippines sociology professor Randy David however explained that in all transitional societies, the problem has always been “how to build something different from what already exists, while avoiding assimilation by conservative forces.”

“The paradox of new politics is that, in theory, it is perhaps the only type of politics that can offer us any hope of survival in the modern world,” David said. “And yet, at the same time, in a transitional society like ours, its practice seems to offer little promise or meaning unless it compromises with traditional politics, or plays second fiddle to revolutionary politics.”

Read the full text of David’s “The Dilemmas and Tasks of New Politics.”

At the forum, David distinguished various forms of politics in society by their goals and methods. Starting with traditional politics or “trapo,” David described its goal of preserving the existing order of society — its inherited hierarchies and inviolable norms — as signified by the unexamined fixation with the rule of law. He also enumerated its well-known methods, which are:

• fostering of dependence and patronage through the exploitation of customary norms like “utang na loob” or debt of gratitude
• elitist paternalistic rule that combines benevolence with calibrated intimidation
• obsession with consensus and disdain for free debate
• unaccountable disposition of public wealth
• unchecked exercise of public power

At the other end of the spectrum, David names revolutionary politics, which aims to completely overhaul the existing social order through the imposition of a new political-legal order, seeking to regulate nearly every aspect of social life. Its accompanying methods are characterized by the following:

• armed struggle and/or the capture or enlistment of the armed forces of the existing State
• revolutionary upheaval
• full deployment of the State’s security forces to crush dissent at least in the immediate period following the seizure of power
• excessive reliance on the regulatory powers of the State to maintain societal stability

David further explained, “In contrast to these two poles, new politics aims to reform institutions and revise existing routines and procedures in accordance with the demands and pressures for change that are already manifest in society, careful not to embark on comprehensive programs of transformation that cannot be sustained by the existing objective conditions.” Favored instruments of new politics are:

• non-violent resistance through the creation of autonomous social movements and people’s organizations
• formation of self-sustaining electoral parties with clear ideologies and programs
• debates and open fora in mass media
• social critique
• mass mobilizations centering on clear-minded advocacies
• community organizing for popular empowerment at all levels of society

The immediate objective of new politics is to end mass poverty and public ignorance as a condition for the progressive democratization and modernization of society, David stressed. “Its thrust is thus more evolutionary than revolutionary, more to strengthen the foundations on which to build the new, than to invent something new from nothing.”

The dilemmas David refers to can be witnessed in the problems faced by individuals who have taken upon themselves the role of new politicians. One of whom is two-term Governor Grace Padaca who ran head-on against the political Goliaths of Isabela.

“As a candidate, I was taunted. They said I was crazy, foolish. ‘Pilay lang yan, sabi nila,'” Padaca lamented. “They did not take me seriously until it was time to count the votes.”

Padaca’s victory in the gubernatorial election in Isabela ended the Dys’ 40-year dynastic rule in the province.

“The first three years of my being governor were very difficult. I had to live with all the blows from everywhere that came my way — all the Dys’ people in the capitol, not to mention, my struggles of adjusting from being a polio-stricken girl since three who was more used to being taken care off but now has to take care of one-and-a-half-million Isabelinos,” Padaca recounted. “If the trapos cannot kill your body, everyday, they will try to kill your spirit.”

Now on her second term as governor, Padaca has realized that power can be a good thing. “It can help you make a lot of difference, especially to those who have lost almost all hope in government,” she said.

Akbayan has invited Padaca as an exemplary figure in government to prove that the Philippine political landscape can still be changed. “The only way to reject traditional politics is for ordinary citizens to reclaim politics,” said Llamas. “Akbayan hopes to rekindle the trust of the Filipino people and make them believe that democracy can work and it can be made meaningful.”