Sunday, 20 March 2016

"A Desire for Change" or "Reaffirming Repression"?

"A Desire for Change" or "Reaffirming Repression"?

Notes on the 2015 elections,
the desire for change,
and a prevailing policy that reaffirms repression


At first, this person is ought to say that today's 2015 elections is all but different personages but same intentions being representatives of the same old social order. With different phrases to justify uniqueness in their liberal-populist oriented programs, with some half-hearted desire for some semblance of "social change", it is obvious that being stooges of the present system likely to fail such intentions presented to the people knowing that the latter have heard over their intentions, that mostly benefited the privileged few than those of the many. 

Be it those from Binay, Poe, Duterte, Santiago, or Roxas, these personages somehow tried to appease the people through the idea of reform, restructure, with justice or fairness as its basis. However, people are preocupied with controversies surrounding these people instead of what their programs insisted, in a way Binay has been barraged with criticism over corruption charges, Poe with her questionable citizenship, Duterte with his street Machiavellianism, Santiago with her illness, and Roxas for trying to continue Aquino's legacy that is, "Neo-Arroyo".

But again, such controversies that had been greatly emphasised in those election-related sprees diverts these people and their political parties from addressing the present social issue enough to be called as "the Philippine crisis." Of course, these presidentiables afforded to say promises like "Agrarian Reform", "Industrialisation", "Decent Living Wage", "Tax Reduction", "Job Security", to those of "Defending National Patrimony"; but given that they are representing the interests of the few, of repressive, despotic landlords, and corrupt compradores, "blessed" by the domineering foreign powers like the United States, Japan, or "red" China, then of what are those promises if are meant to be negated if not broken?
Anyways, Through the electoral process, the system tries to make matters appear "democratic" given the choice of candidate and the rhetoric being babbled about. And it somehow trying to conceal the class character of the ruling state, and creates the illusion that those running and leading the reactionary government are "chosen by the people." Whilst encouraging people to vote for those truly clamouring for genuine reforms and new politics, people should also expose and oppose the tendencies of those whose intention is to support interests behind the veneer of "reform" if not "development."

Labour Export Policy: An example of a Neoliberal-inclined economic policy
that involves cheap labour intended for work abroad.
Worse, the policy has been tainted by corruption, harassment,
and other repressive matters involving Filipino labour.
For an example of an actually-existing issue politicos failed to address a problem, one of the main problems that has confronted the Philippines and other underdeveloped or developing countries is the reckless adoption of the neoliberal economic model as part of their respective economic policies. In pursuit of less government intervention and openness to direct foreign investments, and adapting Government Owned or Controlled Corporations transferred to the private sector, particularly those of local oligarchs and foreign individuals and companies alike, if not having policies that emphasise deregulation and commercialisation of assets.
And perhaps contrary to their so-called promises, these "presidentiables", as well as their fellow candidates in the legislature, are already competing for attention from big interests and presenting themselves as fervent advocates of neoliberal policies. Among their proffered programs is the continuation and expansion of the "Public-Private Partnership" program intensely desired by big domestic and foreign capitalists for its guaranteed profits. To add some populist flavour further, Conditional Cash Transfer program would been retained and tolerated rather than abolished as such.

And despite being redescribed these policies as "Reforms" and "Restructuring" by the system (and perhaps being babbled by these so-called "presidentiables"), Such a process has been one of the culprits behind the huge concentration of wealth by the privileged few, widespread poverty, and even the destruction of national economies and even communities itself. Today, as in the Past centuries, the Philippines, as well as other developing or underdeveloped countries, popularly known collectively as the "third world", can also be described as "proletarian nations", or "servile states", given its backward modes of production and policies favouring foreign companies as well as those of oligarchs, aggravating decades-old problems be it those of Land, Wage, Employment, and other matters affecting the lives of the commoner. Such policies insisted by international finance capital tends to appear developmentalist a la Marcos, with some "policies" trying to appear populistic in case of Conditional Cash Transfer program and some infrastructures supported by foreign loans. 

Regardless of its justifications, it rather showed how politically and economically, the debt-strapped, mendicant, stagnant country has been enslaved to the globalist power centers, with its citizens are being constrained to work under almost, if not entirely servile conditions be it as low-paid farmworkers at Hacienda Luisita, a factory worker at the economic zones and complexes of Bataan or Laguna, to those of call centre agents in Makati, alongside the mass ranks of the unemployed and semiemployed contractuals threatened by possible layoffs. The system, in order to appear as "benevolent" as any other paternalistic figure, would create "piecemeal reforms" ranging from a faux-"land reform" to an additional "living wage", and some rhetorics involving tax-reduction or exemption. Contrary to the actually-existing imposed policies of depressed wages, union-busting, and the encouragement of various forms of labor flexibility. Bounded with these also are policies favouring the landgrabbing for the establishment and expansion of commercial plantations, as well as destructive mining operations done by compradore-owned if not transnational mining companies.

But amidst developments bragged by the system through its mouthpieces in Radio, Television, and Social Media, obviously, with only 15% of the population wallows in 50% of the national income, the majority of the Filipinos will not be freed from the quagmire of abject poverty as well as disenfranchisement and injustice. And laws whose intention is for "imposing social justice" are rather meant to be circumvented. After all, why there are still farmers protesting for land and workers for a decent living wage? Politicos failed to address such matters seriously, except those who had been judged throughout by the system for being against the system itself.

Anyways, regardless of changing political personages, as long as the national leadership serves as a mere puppet of its imperialist masters, the Philippines will rather continue to be an agricultural appendage of powerful and industrialized countries, particularly those of the United States that for decades it continues to cling in its blood-tainted "manifest destiny".

Sorry for those words, but when was the time people question about its country's own policy as well as the system and its leaders' reluctance to admit such failures?