PHILIPPINES The Philippines, East Europe, Socialism and Democracy
Interview with Joel Rocamora JOEL ROCAMORA has been active in the Philippine struggle, at home and abroad, for many years. He taught politics at the University of the Philippines in Manila, before he was imprisoned by the Marcos regime, after the declaration of martial law in 1972, and subsequently forced into exile. In the United States, Joel was director of the Southeast Asia Resource Center and later the Philippine Resource Center. This interview was conducted in February 1990, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, where Joel is now based and where he is associate director of the Transnational Institute (TNI). This interview was done for International Viewpoint by Jeroen Zonneveld and Rob Lubbersen.
Joel Rocamora analyzes here the impact of the recent developments in Eastern Europe on the Filipino Left and the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). He presents his own views on the significance of these historic events for
Marxist parties, whether we are talking about so-called pro-Moscow or proBeijing ones... Even Marxist parties in your own Trotskyist tradition have to deal with the question of the role of the party after victory. In the case of the Philippines, fortunately these questions are being posed in the course of the struggle itself. This is very important because if you do not deal with the issue now, in a real way — which is in a way that affects how you are acting - then you will never deal with it properly. One has to deal with such issues in practice, and not only in theory.
For example, in 1986 the CPP made a self-criticism, not only for having decided to boycott the 1986 presidential elections, but also, and more importantly, it criticized itself for failing, on this occasion, to implement democracy within the party and in relation to the mass organizations in which it operates.? The CPP Politbureau made criticisms of the process whereby the decision to boycott was made within the party. Moreover, party units within mass organizations used pressure tactics and took organizational steps to get legal organizations to take a boycott position even when that did not reflect the opinion of the mass organization itself.
After that, there was a call for more democracy, inside the party as well as in the mass organizations. However, especially under conditions of clandestinity, the battle for inner party democracy is a long battle. It is not just one single battle, it is really a long war to fight. It is hopefully a situation of two steps forward — one sten back and not the other way around. Clearly this has not yet been completely successful. Not decisively anyway. İ speak of the 1986 self-criticism as an important step forward, but it went only part of the way.
• How does the CPP assess what's happening in China, Eastern Europe and the USSR?
On international questions it is very difficult at this point to say where the center of gravity is in the leadership of the CPP.
For a long time, the CPP looked to China on international issues. It stopped doing so when it decided not to follow anymore the Chinese Three Worlds Theory according to which the USSR had become the main enemy. The CPP leadership decided to have its own understanding of the world situation. This was eventually made explicit in an interview with the chairman of the Party, in July 1987. This has been a very positive step forward.
On the other hand, if you are an intellectual and you have been in the hills for the last fifteen years, what happened in China and Eastern Europe must be bewildering because you have only got some tiny little pieces of it. On the radio you can only hear the "Voice of America" and the BBC
"World Service". . I am not even sure that
Third World revolutionaries. W impact of the recent hat has been the events in Eastern Europe and the USSR on the Philippine Left? THESE developments have put certain questions on the agenda in the Philippines, for the National Democratic Front and all the "national democrats". '. This is true for both the above ground and underground NDs.1
Even if it is experienced by the CPP and the NDF people in ways that are quite specific, I think that what Marxists in the Philippines have to confront is the same as everywhere else in the Third World. We must deal with the question of democracy, inner party democracy and the role of the party in relation to other political and mass organizations.
That is extremely important and goes very, very deep. What has happened in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is historic. Questions of democracy cannot anymore be disregarded by revolutionar-
They may choose to be antiies. democratic, but the question is now on the agenda of revolutionaries every22 where. International Viewpoint #186 • June 4, 1990
• It is not the first time you have underlined the importance of the issue of democracy for revolutionaries. I have said the same things previously, even before the developments in Eastern Europe. The questions themselves are not so new, of course. The NDF has had to confront them many times, since 1986 and the downfall of the Marcos dictatorship especially. But with the changing situation in Eastern Europe, they are raised in an even more serious way than before. If you look at the program of the NDF, you will find that it does not believe in one-party-rule. This is then true for the CPP itself, as it is a member organization of the NDF. In fact, the latest version of the NDF program, of November 1989, explicitly uses the term "political pluralism". Some people will argue that the CPP puts out a program in which it does not really believe. I don't think that it is correct to say so.
What I think is true is that, as the CPP struggles to deal with its position in Philippine society, at whatever point in time, it has to confront its ideological history. her To ta the case to This is in fact the case for al
you can still get Moscow in the Philippines. You can get radio Beijing but their news broadcasts are not heard very much. So, it's understandable that people in the mountains find it difficult to figure out a serious position on these events. What then is that the leadership happens depends on certain people for party formulations on international questions in a greater way than on other issues.
There was an article, in the November 1989 issue of the party paper, Ang Bayan, which said some quite favourable things about perestroika and glasnost. But there is no collective position, yet. Some in the CP leadership believe with Ligachev that Gorbachev is betraying Communism and Marxism-Leninism. They say the reason why the Communist parties in Eastern Europe have failed is because they introduced capitalist elements in the economy, so they allowed the reactionaries to establish a foothold and now the reactionaries have kicked them out. I disagree with that position. Some others think, and
I would agree more with them, that at the root of the problem is that, in those coun tries, the dictatorship of the proletariat has been identified with the dictatorship of the party, which is a quite different thing.
• Could you elaborate a bit more on this question?
The present problems have to do with the way the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat has been linked to the role of the Leninist party. In theoretical terms, yes it makes sense. If you agree that the state is the expression of class rule then whichever class rules you will have the dictatorship of a class. If the proletariat rules then you have the dictatorship of the proletariat. The assumption is that once you get rid of the bourgeoisie by revolution, then everybody will be the proletariat. Therefore it is not really a dictatorship.
But in many cases, the reality was not dictatorship of the proletariat but dictatorship of the so-called proletarian party.
Then, the state and the apparatus of the state merged with the party. All of the other organizations become part of the operation of the state or the party. This is bad not only for the society, but also for the party. If the party controls everything then there are tendencies that develop within these parties that make them flabby and bureaucratic and not accountable to the people. There should be room for organizations to operate independently of the government and of the party.
1.The National Democratic Front (NDF) is an underground organization, led by the CPP. The "national democrats" (or NDs) are those activists, including those acting above ground in legality, who identify themselves with the basic program and goals of the
NDF.
2. The CPP boycotted the 1986 snap presidential election which led to the "EDSA revolution", the downfall of the Marcos dictatorship and the formation of the
Aquino regime.
PHILIPPINES Dimming prospects for democracy in the Philippines REPRESSION is intensifying in the Philippines. We publish below a statement on the latest events issued by the Transnational Institute and signed by many Individuals and organizations which participated in a conference on "Sustainable Development in the Philippines" held in Amsterdam May 17-19, 1990,
RECENT developments in the Philippines put in jeopardy the prospects of democratic expression, independent people's Initiatives and human rights. We are alarmed that in the repressive logic of the Philippine government's counter-insurgency policy, which treats everything as a weapon of war and almost every non-government initiative as a suspect and seditious endeavor, these basic features of democracy have become, like a growing number of innocent Filipinos, casualties of wents which highlight total war. the direction government policy and attitude are taking: 1. The arrest last May 10 of Jaime Tadeo, chairperson of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Plilpinas (KMP - Philippine Peasant Movement) and leader of the Coalition for a People's Agrarian Reform (CAR) and the
Peasants Forum, and the filing of sedition charges against Leony
Montemayer (FFF), Benjamin Cruz (Sanduguan), Paang Mariano
(KMP), Oscar Castillo (Pakisama) and 195 others.
Coming after renewed farmers' protests, Tadeo's conviction over what the late Senator Jose Dickno calls a ten year criminal "non-case"
Is a thin and ridiculous excuse to silence him. More than this, it symbolizes the Imprisonment of the people's desire for genuine agrarian reform.
2. The violent dispersal of anti-US bases railles and the arrests of leaders Lidy Nacpil-Alejandro of BAYAN, Nathaniel Santiago of the League of Filipino Students and Al Senturias of the UCCP with several others last May 16.
This happening highlights the government's Increasing intolerance towards dissenting opinions and its as yet unofficial option in the current negotiations over the U.S. bases in the Philippines.
3. The summary killing of unarmed tribesfolk Norman and Antonio
Akien last April 3 at Tadian, Mountain Province and the continuous harassment of their sister, Georgia Valasco of DATC, a Cordillera nongovernment organization.
The two brothers were allegedly killed in an encounter between Philippine Constabulary troopers and NPA rebels which residents denled ever occurred. The Armed Forces have since been harassing protesters, Including the victims' sister and tribes kin, who are requesting
Independent Investigation and subsequent prosecution of involved soldiers.
This and other similar killings, compounded by government Inaction, have made a mockery of the country's system of justice and have elevated the Armed Forces as judge and executioner in the exigencies of war.
As Individuals concerned with the realization of democracy in the
Philippines, we are calling for the Immediate release of Jimmy Tadeo,
Lidy Nacpll-Alejandro, Nathaniel Santiago and others. Likewise, we are calling for the prosecution of the gullty in the Tadian killings.
We are calling on the government of President Cory Aquino to redirect its hostilities towards the causes of pervasive poverty and misery. We urge it to work with equal zeal to uplift the people's social and economic conditions. Only through this can It give justice to the popular sacrifice that, in the first place, placed it in power, * L
PHILIPPINES
So, at the core of the issues that Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union are facing, you'll find the connection between the party and state institutions. And I think that Marxists and Marxist-Leninist parties have not dealt with these things seriously enough in the past. Even in the case of the
Philippines, the CPP still needs to undertake some extremely serious debates on these kinds of questions. Because while the NDF program already says all the right things about democracy, some of the ideas in the heads of some people within the party do not correspond to them. So there are now and there will be struggles within the party as well as between party people and non-party people within the
NDF.
Hopefully, I think that there is a worldwide positive trend. On democracy and the practice of proletarian Marxist parties, the more recent experiences are showing improvements. Socialist countries, especially the newer ones, have a contribution to make. Even the Soviet Union... But one has to go back to their past in order to find such a contribution. From the Soviet party to China to Cuba, from Cuba to Nicaragua, there are positive changes. Many of my ideas on the subject are in fact picked up from Latin American revolutionaries.
• So the traditional bourgeois democratic model is not the only way forward ?
I think that the Marxist criticism of the bourgeois state and democracy remains valid - the criticism of the class nature and the limits of democratic institutions in advanced capitalist countries. As long as the means of production are as tie means or production are controlled by a small minority of the people, the exercise of democracy in representative institutions is going to be limited. Because economic power plays a very important role in how democratic rights are exercised.
However, that criticism did not give sufficient scope to the way in which certain elements in bourgeois democracy - things like the bills of rights, institutions, representative checks in the power of the state and so on - are things that were fought for not just by the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy, but also by the working classes. I think there is broad agreement now among progressive people, including Marxists, that we have to respect these rights and institutions. That is relatively new. The way the NDF program puts it is that there are certain internationally recognized institutional require-
24 for ments democracy, whatever the social system.
International Viewpoint #186 • June 4, 1990
An important element is to look at the experiences of direct democracy, not just representative democracy, to see what aspects of them can be useful for various levels of social development — to study all of them, from the workplaces to the neighbourhood institutions, from Cuba or
Yugoslavia to the "Soviets" (the word means "Councils") in the USSR itself. These are things that need to be looked at very carefully as forms to place next to parliamentary or representative institutions. Because I would say that the experience of advanced capitalist countries and most certainly the experience of Third World countries have shown that representative institutions by themselves do not necessarily mean real democracy.
There are also questions which have to do with Socialist construction, and the connection between the type of economic strategy that you want to follow and the political institutions that are required by it. If you are going to follow a Stalinist model of forced collectivization, heavy industrialization and so on, then of necessity you are going to have a repressive state. • Has the NDF worked out a program on such issues ? More on the economic issues than on the political ones. Among all the currents of the Left, in the Philippines, the National Democratic one has been the most successful in recruiting professional economists. The best progressive professional economists of the country are National Democrats.
PROFITS
• How do you explain that ?
I don't know. It could be as simple as the fact that the cadre assigned to recruit the economists happened to be a very good cadre. Well, I think that it has to do with the National Democratic framework. With the fact that, for example, despite the
CPP's influence within the NDF, Bisig 3 talks about Socialism a lot more than the
National Democrats do. These economists are ideologically linked with the CPP and they have done a lot of very good work, looking at the prospects for a mixed economy in the Philippines and what that would mean. In some senses the Philippine CP and the NDF are much better prepared for Socialist construction and transition than, say for example, the
Namibian SWAPO is or even the Nicaraguans when they took power in 1979.
This is brought about by the realities of the struggle itself. Here is the New People's Army (NPA) and the party. They work in a given rural area, where they have won the support of the population.
The landlords have been kicked out. New trading and credit networks get constructed. The CPP and the NPA have to deal with very concrete problems, with the economy of areas that are liberated.
That's why this question of mixed economy comes in. But, here, there is a gap between the practice and the theory of the movement. The CPP and the NDF mostly use the word "nationalization"
, somewhat into the way that Catholics say "Hail
Mary". But what is the strategy behind such nationalizations? How do they fit in the framework of a mixed economy, where you have state, cooperatives and private enterprises. And what do strategic industries (the ones to be nationalized) mean for a Third World economy?
What is happening is a situation where the practice of a revolutionary movement requires certain new understandings, a whole change in a traditional ways of thinking. It is very, very hard to give up such ways of thinking, despite the very obvious contradiction between practice, what I call the middle-level theory that you develop in relation to it, and the basic theories that have been handed down to you through Mao Zedong
Thought and Stalin's "Problems of Leninism"
. There is need for discussions. All of us should look at this contradiction between practice and theory with a completely open mind. The only thing that I am hoping for, is that it does not lead to organizational splits and new forms of sectarianism.
• Do CPP cadres see dan-
CAPITALYT
gers in the policy of economic reforms as applied in China or other countries ?
A fairly common position, with which I would to some extent agree, is that the Deng leadership has been rather indiscriminate in its attempts to bring in market type economic activities in China. It is particularly dangerous in China because overseas Chinese from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, or Thailand still operate, and their networks are still Chinese networks. They really represent a transnational capital, whether they are naturalized as Filipinos, Indonesians, or something else. They represent a very powerful base for the bourgeoisie in China so that the indiscriminate way in which Chinese capital was allowed to come into the economic zones is very dangerous. • Do you imply that the Chinese democratic movement was a product of this capitalist trend ?
No, I don't mean that. Clearly, the struggle for democracy in China goes beyond the results of the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping. But I think that in the case of China, these reforms do explain some things. For example, probably the most important issue is corruption. There was already corruption in China before. But the level of corruption, as a result of the reforms, has become massive. Also, one of the measures that Deng implemented was to allow graduate students to find their own jobs. Then, the government rescinded that order and once again required graduated students to join work units in a compulsory way. This played a role in the radicalization of the student's struggles.
But I also think that some CPP leaders tend to project onto the USSR and Eastern Europe elements of analysis which apply only to China and maybe to Poland and Hungary. They certainly do not apply to the Soviet Union because I don't think that there is a bourgeoisie left in the Soviet Union. Gorbachev will have to recreate one! Of course, there is concern among a lot of people, including me, that in the rush to get rid of the nastier aspects of the - state, the Socialist baby might be thrown out with the bureaucratic Communist bathwater — things like guarantees for employment, basic necessities and so on. These are things that workers in these countries fought for. But the essential point, I think, is to recognize that it is the people who move, there, in Eastern Europe and in a more complex way in the Soviet Union... the masses. And if you are going to continue to be a Socialist, you've got to affirm what these masses have done. The thrust towards democracy which underlies most of the claims and the demands of the masses in Eastern Europe and the Soviet
PHILIPPINES
DOMINA
RALTST
THE US PI
UF.
LA - KAPPA DELTA SIG
KA
Union are things to be affirmed. And their victories are things to be celebrated. In addition, the development of the productive forces in these countries is much higher compared to those in Nicaragua, Zimbabwe and Vietnam, so that the possibility of advancing to Socialism is more favourable, if you see Socialism as not just class struggle but also as developing the productive forces. It offers the possibility for a renewal of Socialism as an ideal. • What other implications might the changes in the USSR have for the CPP? The whole question of proletarian internationalism has to be reexamined. And a related question: what kind of role do Socialist states, especially those under the influence of the Soviet Union, play in the anti-imperialist struggle. The theoretical questions here, I think, are quite profound. It starts from the declaration of the CPSU that the class struggle is not anymore the main determinant of the foreign policy of the Soviet state. Which I never thought it was. But for them to state it theoretically is a very important development. The way the CPP is confronted by this issue is different than for many other organizations. Because it comes out of the Maoist tradition, it already formulated sharp criticisms, in the past, of the international practice of the Soviet state and party. Also, it has never received any assistance from the CPSU. Since it abandoned the Chinese position that the USSR is social-imperialist, the CPP has been trying to develop party-to-party relations with the CPSU but, as far as I know, it has not succeeded. I think that the CPP agrees with other Communist parties in different parts of the Third World in being worried about the existing changes in Soviet international policy, and about future changes. That is, in very simple terms, that they are worried that there will be less money available from the Soviet Union. I agree with that.
Where I differ with such an approach is that I think that proletarian internationalism is not a one-way street. I don't believe that we should look at proletarian internationalism simply in terms of the flow of ideas and resources coming from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe towards Third World revolutionary movements. I think it is very important for revolutionary movements to look into the situation the Soviet party faces and to say, for example, if it does make sense for them to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Is there any justification for the Soviet Union or any Socialist country to maintain troops in another country at the level and for the length of time that the Soviets maintained their troops there? I do not think so. The same question can be asked about the military role of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, in the course of the last twenty years or so. • And what about the presence of a pro-Soviet party in the Philippines?
Within the Philippines itself, the CPP had to grapple with the question of how to relate to another party that says it is a Communist party- the PKP*, which as far as I know continues to maintain fraternai ties with the CPSU. There, the theoretical question that needs to be answered is the following one: in any given country, is there room for more than one Communist party? In the case of the Philippines and the CPP, this question has never been confronted. 3. Bisig is an organization of the militant independent socialist Left, founded in 1986. 4. PKP: Partido Komunista ng Pilipina, or the "old" PREP in 196.9,or the "new" party originated from the 25 PKP in 1967-1968. June 4, 1990 • #186 International Viewpoint
PHILIPPINES
The traditional position has always been to assume that there can only be one Communist Party in one country. That question was posed and answered in a fairly decisive way by the experience of Latin America and by the practice of Cuba, where they organized a Party Congress for which they invited seven different organizations from Chile that all claimed to be Communist Parties. Which means that the Cubans don't believe anymore that you can only have one communist party for each country. • How about Cuba itself ?
That's true, that's a different question for them. But I think that the need for political pluralism cannot be ignored, in the long run. The way that I look at this development is as materialist as possible. This issue is central to the most recently liberated countries, like Nicaragua and Zimbabwe in particular — but also to Namibia. If you are a good Marxist, then you have to say this is not just because people in these countries have read about it, but because there are material bases for it.
Therefore, I think that what the Nicaraguans call revolutionary pluralism is the position that will win in the long run. This idea of doing away with one party states, the more serious introduction of democracy into the revolutionary process is a position that will win out, because there is a social, material basis for it, for demands for democracy to intensify, to increase, not only in Socialist countries but also in the Third World and hopefully in the advanced capitalist countries as well. • So you think that the thrust toward more democracy expresses, even in the Third World, an objective need ?
Yes, very clearly. Look at those Third World countries, especially in Latin America and parts of Asia, where authoritarian regimes have been replaced by democratic regimes: the process was a real process, it is not fake. The 1986 revolution in the Philippines was real.
The same thing is true of the movement that brought Duarte in El Salvador into power, Cereso in Guatemala, Alfonsin in Argentina, or Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. There was a real thrust towards democracy. However in these countries, it has been taken over by the bourgeoisie, or the landlords. This is because the political organizations of the lower classes were not developed enough, and, I would insist, because Marxist movements in many places in the Third World have not taken democracy seriously enough.
If Corazon Aquino says she wants democracy that's for real, but in the sense that she rejects the Marcos regime, which was a dictatorship not just against the lower classes but a dictatorship against 26 So what she has created in the Philippines • other fractions of the upper classes, too. International Viewpoint #186 • June 4, 1990 is equal rights for all the different fractions of the bourgeoisie.
In all of these countries where you had a transition from authoritarian regimes to so-called democratic regimes, from the point of view of the lower classes, the promise of democracy was betrayed. And everywhere in these countries, the main reason is because the social-economic basis for broad democracy does not exist. The struggle for a popularly rooted democracy is quite difficult, there. • What do you mean ?
To begin with, if you are not even sure to be able to feed your family then it is very difficult to think about political participation. It is as simple as that. Democracy requires a civil society outside of the state. It is this that Eastern Europeans are always talking about. The state and its institutions have to be balanced by institutions in the civil society, whether you are talking about labour unions or women's organizations or ecological organizations, chess clubs or whatever. A wide range of institutions within which there is participation by the population. But, in the Third World, there is a stronger element of violence, of repression than in Western societies. Organizations of the lower classes are very often violently suppressed and cannot operate freely.
You also have to take into account the nature of imperialism at this point in history and its impact on the societies it dominates - especially on their class structure. There, the urban industrial proletariat is not becoming the majority, as was probably assumed by many Marxists. Instead you have a broad rural semiproletariat, you have millions of landless labourers and urban poor.
It is even quite hard to think in Marxist terminology, about things like the way in which the informal sector has grown.
What do you call somebody who sells single cigarettes? Or chewing-gum by the piece? How do you deal with that? Or how do we understand the term petty bourgeoisie in a Third World context? There, the petty bourgeoisie in the original Marxist meaning, the small bourgeoisie of traders, small artisans and so on, is less important than the schoolteachers, the clerks of the department stores or the government, reporters etc. So the class situation in many Third World countries is quite unexpected. You have to come up with new ideas. If you look at the political programs, you will find that they reflect these changes because they have to deal with them in a day-to-day sense. The problem is that the ideology that has been handed out from 1917 down is very difficult to dislodge. In many ways, there is a contradiction between the reality and the thinking of party people who formulated the theories.
We face specific difficulties in the Third World countries. Your political current have placed most of the emphasis on overcoming the separation between the state and civil society, on initiating a process of withering away of the state. But the kind of situations that many Third World countries are confronted with is very different, to the point that theoretically, the distinction between the state and civil society remains valid. I would insist that in many Third World countries the concrete situation is such that the state will continue to be strengthened in the near future. • For some organizations, the struggle for democracy in the Third World is only for a remote future...
Yes, there are people in the left who think that democracy is something you can postpone. First you have to feed the people and then you have to destroy the base of the bourgeoisie and the other ruling classes and then you have to kick out US imperialism and to prevent counterrevolution and, maybe, 40 years later we can have democracy.
My own feeling is that you can't effectively feed the people unless you have democracy. You can't effectively prevent counterrevolution unless you have democracy. In other words all of these things are interrelated. Unfortunately, if you are trying to run a country you have to deal with all these things at the same time. But the struggle for democracy is not a luxury, it's an illusion to think that you can deal with economics now and with democracy tomorrow only. Or the other way around. • Compared to other Third World countries, how would you assess the conditions, in the Philippines?
I think the Philippines has greater chances of developing democracy in the future than many other Third World countries. First, because the bourgeois institutions of representative democracy and the bill of rights have been in place in the Philippines since 1916, when the country was still a colony of the United States. There is a practice already of at least bourgeois democracy. And this is important in the culture of a people.
Two, during the twenty years of the Marcos dictatorship, there has been a massive growth of non-political party type of organizations. The infrastructure of workers, peasant, women organizations and so on is tremendous.
Third, I think that the fact that there are struggles within the Left, not just struggles between National Democrats, Social Democrats and Bisig, but struggles within the NDF itself on these questions, is already an advance. This is a process that will take a long time. I hope it will end in a fight for a more authentic Socialism. • Which is?
Socialism with a more direct type of democracy, a combination of representative democracy and other forms of democгасу. *