When asked to participate in this gathering, the Democratic Left Conference, I heartily agreed and requested that I be allowed to speak on the situation of the Philippine Left. The reason is that among the subjects to be discussed, it is the one that I feel I can contribute more and that allows me to share, not only my impressions of the common and diverse pictures of the community we call the Philippine Left, but ideas and suggestions regarding the pressing problems confronting it.

I am very happy to be here today and to see faces that have been familiar to me for decades, as well as new and younger leaders with whom I have worked with, and who have taken on leadership responsibilities during a very difficult period of the Philippine Left from the nineties to the present. Understandably, with the divisions and dynamics of the recent past remaining fresh to everyone, we came here with very modest aims and expectations. In fact, many of us came here prepared to take in doses of frustration, in case certain things don’t turn out well. But I have a feeling that everybody, or almost everybody, including me, yearns deeply, a sentiment that remains very strong among our constituents, for a more unifying process and results beyond our most recent effort, Alternatiba, or reinvigorating Alternatiba, whichever will strengthen the left more.

That is the reason why I would like to focus more on two issues, given time limitations. First, is to help gather all those resources to inspire hope in the unifying process, and second, how to set up all those processes that will bring us together again.

As we gather today, a deepening crisis of governance of the Philippine state confronts our society. The words “crisis of governance” were used in the late 80s by the CPP to describe a governmental crisis that opens up to the possibility of an extra-constitutional solution. When used in the Philippine context where state power is exclusively in the hands of ruling class factions or forces, except in the few marginal areas of open revolt, a crisis in governance will not in itself lead to a crisis of class rule, or something like a revolutionary situation, or a crisis that will lead to seizure of power by the popular classes and forces, a dual power situation, or a power sharing arrangement between elite factions and the popular forces.

EDSA II is a good example of a crisis of governance, which stops at the door of a crisis of class rule. The failed EDSA III shares the same limitations. EDSA I was deeper. The crisis that brought it about was both a crisis of governance and a crisis of class rule. The Marcos dictatorship was wracked not only by an intense inter-elite strife but more so by a nationwide revolutionary struggle led by the CPP, a seething Moro armed struggle in Muslim Mindanao, a CPP led though authentically indigenous armed movement in the Cordilleras, and an urban upsurge of the popular forces. On the agenda for hegemony at that time were not only the replacement of Marcos and his dictatorial rule, but a radical change of class-based power in favor of the popular classes.

What then is this crisis of governance that I’m referring to? We have to understand its causes.

First, a messy and fraud-ridden 2004 elections which created lasting credibility gaps for the Malacanang occupant, such as a majority proclamation by Congress instead of the usual unanimous proclamation and an electoral protest that will remain unresolved forever due to the death of the protestant. Second, an unprecedented fiscal crisis. Third, the devastating impact on the majority of people, and small and medium businesses, of liberalization measures on oil, power, water and prime commodities. Four, the exposes of gargantuan corruption at the highest levels of government, AFP corruption and conversion scandals, the Marcos wealth diversion, the coco levy scams, and now the grand jueteng protection money scandal which knocks at the door of the presidency. And fifth, the violence directed, with impunity, at journalists, lawyers and activists.

The over-all effect is ungovernability, a fearful sense of drift while the conditions of society and polity deteriorate, to which a section of the military and other right-wing forces offer a junta solution. What is new is that sections of business and the middle class no longer express alarm over this kind of fascist alternative. In fact a growing sentiment across classes for strongman types of leaders can be discerned from the respectable showing of Ping Lacson during the last presidential elections.

Many of the solutions prescribed by local elite leaders and US officials and government agencies consist of first, changes in the constitutional form of government. It is not because they want to strengthen mass participation in government; but because they fear a repetition of EDSA processes which may one day endanger the establishment itself. To them, the parliamentary solution is a way to solve the executive or presidential crisis, through the parliamentary vote of confidence or calling for early elections. It will rationalize governance by removing gridlocks or stalemates between the executive and legislative branches.

The second proposed solution is fiscal stabilization. However, fiscal stabilization, like other suggested solutions, will also produce more contradictions. Austerity measures, including major cuts in social service spending and government retrenchment are bound to fuel more unrest, just like VAT and other tax increases. The government does not have the political will to end automatic appropriation for debt service that takes up 40% of the national budget every year.

The half-hearted anti-corruption campaign cannot ease the crisis of governance but if followed to its logical conclusion, the axe may fall on Malacanang itself. A constitutional convention, although most desired, might become a fifth estate, recalling the 1971 experience, and a channel for agitation and accumulation of unrest. A move to call Congress as a constituent assembly will not be popular, because the masses have a low opinion of Congress. Adding fuel to the fire is the not-so secret agenda of people who want to change the Constitution, which is to water down the patrimony and social justice provisions of the existing Constitution, despite the mounting attacks on the people’s livelihood and dignity by neoliberal capitalist globalization.

I am not saying that these solutions will not work, but I believe the crisis might be prolonged and we should better prepare for it. The business of the Left, I believe, is to develop, within this crisis, those elements that might produce an intensification of the crisis of class rule. So if there are possibilities that open up, let us explore these in order to develop these into a bigger share of power, bigger space until the point of seizing state power.

There are two barriers or two problems that need to be solved, and these have come out before in our discourses. The first and new problem, which we have felt for some time now, is a kind of attitude we have observed among our people - a lack of interest in participating in movements for social change. Some call it cynicism; some call it an apolitical attitude; others believe the masses have not yet found the alternative that would inspire them to action. That is why it is very hard to produce a critical mass.

Second, a divided and in fact, in certain sections, a warring Left. It has been a heavy blow to the people’s morale and inspiration that the very people calling for social change are divided, fighting among themselves and in some instances, killing each other. This is an enormous problem and I believe we should put our heads together during our discourses in the days to come, and discover how to revive the hopes of the oppressed masses and the people, and how to get our act together, despite our differences.

I am more optimistic about the possibility that we will, once again, be together. In our past discussions and discourses, our commonalities and differences are becoming clearer. The important thing is how we can put this into practice. We are all engaged in theorizing and praxis, although I believe we are still wanting in both, and especially in relating and integrating theory and practice. For example, in what we call revisioning or reimagining of the socialist program for the past 13 years, a common position against the ravages of global capitalism is becoming clearer — the reaffirmation of the socialist principle of public ownership and public control. However, only a few groups have categorically and clearly stated that they stand for public control and public ownership, especially in key sectors of our economy.

It is natural that for a time we were engrossed in studying the failed attempts at building socialism, or independent governments that emphasized public control, and even our own experiences with government controlled and owned corporations. We used a lot of energy in clarifying nuances such as the role of private initiative and the role of private control in the macro-economy. I don’t believe we should regret this effort. I believe it was time well spent for we have deepened our understanding of capitalism, especially the state of capitalism in the Philippines.

To those who are still busy looking for a good role for private initiative, private component or private control, I can only suggest that they focus on the state of our markets. We must recognize that our country is on the margins of capitalism, and therefore its markets are highly distorted and imperfect, and the only solution to put more sense and public welfare into our economy is to reassert and reaffirm the need for public control and public ownership.

Another thing that we desperately need in the reconstruction of our socialist vision is the question of public accountability. What are the processes that will institute accountability — that will enable the public to participate in the administration of public enterprises and institutions? That is what we are striving to study, through theory and praxis in Akbayan and in political groups and people’s organizations that are part of Akbayan.

Our modest proposal is for participatory democracy and participatory socialism. We reaffirm the importance of public ownership and public control, and the importance as well of instituting a public accountability process in governing these institutions. I believe our unity is not far off; this is obvious from the discourses and practice of Freedom from Debt Coalition. I would like to thank the different blocs, groups and NGOS that patiently worked to strengthen this coalition because I believe it has a vital role and contribution, not only in the deepening of the socialist discourse and working for the interest of the worker and peasant masses, but also in the effort to develop a new Left culture.

Second, about the land question. There are some differences in the positions of various groups on land reform. We need a comradely type of discourse. The community to which I belong believes that we should use what we have won through law, principle, and constitutional mandate on agrarian reform. What is important is the creation of the potential to revive the fighting spirit of peasants and other rural folk, and from there discover what is better, ownership of small farms or more cooperative and collective agricultural production.

I think the discussion of the core issue should not end up in straitjacketing theory and practice. Instead we should grasp the dynamics opened up by victories in the anti-dictatorship and anti-feudal struggles during Marcos rule and Aquino’s total war. We should use the law to revive and organize the peasants’ militant spirit, so they can attain their land and organize themselves for their own welfare. It is very important to be able to share best experiences or best practices.

I can only offer some good examples from areas in many provinces where Unorka, Padayon, Parrds, and Peace operate. We do not believe that pushing a land to the tiller program, while forming independent peasant organizations in the countryside, can hinder their initiative to pursue more radical social changes and strengthen their political power. I respect and want to learn from other experiences, for example, experiences in Negros, where after getting land, the people went straight to collective management of an enterprise.

It is time to bury the traditional bias of socialist thinking against small farms; it has never been proved that these small farms have led to the revival of capitalism, whether it is in Russia, China or Vietnam. All researches have proved that land distribution does not contradict cooperation and mutual help in other aspects of production such as the collective purchase of inputs, tractors and other farm implements, and collective marketing of farm products. In fact, there are many good experiences from Russia, China and Vietnam that have been set aside in the course of debate.

The focus has been on studying new methods and initiatives that sometimes end up in World Bank market-led land reform programs. We have to review how farms and factories were managed, the valuable experiences of the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam and Cuba, among others. I was privileged to meet comrades from other countries, and I was heartened and encouraged by the experiences they shared, past experiments that are better, more humane and more liberating, but were since buried by the sweeping condemnation of socialism.

About strategy, a strategy is made up of many elements but I will focus on one, the character of the Philippine state. The various efforts to further develop open and legal struggles are commendable. But in the more than one decade that we have participated in legal struggles, especially in the countryside and in urban areas that are hardly ever reached by media and institutions, we have come to some realizations.

Compared to many Latin American countries, the Philippine national state is very weak. Political power rests more on regional or provincial political elites and they exercise their power through their influence on local government; they exercise their power through their own state instruments like maintaining armed goons, influences on Churches, media and other institutions, and at the same time they also retain powerful clout in Malacanang and in Congress.

In the Philippines, a large part of state political power can be found in the localities. Although we consider as important the efforts of our comrades in the NGO community to explore various participatory processes, we cannot deny that the large part of state power is in the hands of regional and provincial elites. That limits the potential of national legal and open mass struggles to create radical changes in the country. In this light, it is very important to review the past.

The CPP-NPA-NDF was able to reach a level where it was able to establish alternative political power in different strategic areas in the countryside. In the desire to amass this strength and use it to seize power from the ruling elite faction, we were able to form tactical alliances with regional and local power elites. We were not able to review the implications of these actions. In a majority of these areas, we were not able to weaken this political power. So, when Marcos was kicked out and replaced by the Aquino faction, the reactionary character of the national state was easily reproduced. In this light, it is important to examine the experience of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the Philippines in its continuing efforts at base building. We should also examine the base building experience of our comrades in the RPM-ABB. And it would be good to study the experience in building the new types of zones of political power in the countryside by comrades in Padayon.

We should have an active dialogue because in developing a national strategy we should combine a national track, and at the same time, a provincial or regional power strategy. We must develop zones of people’s empowerment in the countryside that are similar in many respects, but are different from the traditional guerilla zones. We should deepen our study of the practice of the CPP (Reaffirm), despite its fundamental violation of the mass line, and its irresponsible and opportunist collaboration with landlords and the ruling elite. I have heard of areas where they have had good experiences on how to dismantle the political power of landlords. That is one of the bulwarks of the reproduction of state power and until we smash it, it will continue to play this role, despite “red” or radical EDSAs. Third, in relation to the dialectic of reform and revolution, which is often heard in my community, I believe we are wanting in this respect, because our practice has been more reform than revolution. It is clear to me that we should agree that the process of reform, however good, should always be set within the revolutionary framework.

There are still two past issues that weaken and eat at our unity - issues of our accountability. We have to make a direct, clear, critical and modest analysis of the anti-DPA campaign. I assure you that I will continue to help in this campaign, and even redouble my efforts. I suggest that comrades who were former members of the CPP should sit down and talk about this bravely and honestly. Let us exchange information. Let us reveal what we know. We should be able to differentiate between rumors and the truth. We have to level off on these things. Our people should be able to see that those who are fighting for social changes are capable of criticizing and correcting themselves. Our failure to do this will not help the re-strengthening of the revolutionary movement. But I have great faith and hope that we can do this. There were a lot of gibes aimed at Alternatiba in the past. But it was a real effort and it was able to develop a process and method.

I think, in the coming months, that we should seriously face the building of a socialist front. We should engage in active discourse and an analysis of ethics and rules. We can start by refraining from entering areas where other left forces already are, and by helping to solve any related problems. We should stop organizing the organized and start organizing the millions who are as yet unorganized. We should continue our dialogues. I have to admit that I have also failed to talk with some comrades these past years. The relations of some left groups with factions of the ruling elite are sometimes the source of jokes and intrigues. There is basis for honest and sincere criticism and critique, for we all know that these things were caused by the negative effects of the split and the actions of the CPP.

Some actions taken by comrades were simply ways to survive, ways of adjusting to the change in conditions. The period since the 1990s has been very difficult. Our belief in socialism and revolution was seriously shaken; comrades had no money; former party leaders were aging; still others had to face family and other problems. This was made worse by members of civil society factions who said the Left is this and that. We are only human. We suffered so much in this past decade and more. But we are here, still standing upright, despite problems or weaknesses we had and still have. In the end, the only thing we can do is to be kind to and patient with each other.