Tuesday, 21 February 2017

Still desiring for social freedom (In a still age of social repression)

Still desiring for social freedom 
(In a still age of social repression)

Notes on the 31st anniversary of the "People Power" revolt
The system's failure to pursue "Economic Emancipaton",
 "Political Liberation", and "Social Concord",
And the people's assertion for genuine social reform

It's been 31 years since Filipinos been liberated from the dictatorship. And like those past years, in keeping with both tradition and duty, people take time to remember a so-called "revolutionary legacy", of rekindling a "revolutionary spirit" brought about by unity, and perhaps as trustees of the country, everyone has to set new agendas for a still developing nation.

Basing on various statements, of desires for unity, change, and continuity of a revolutionary heritage, people should perhaps take note that this tradition surrounding that commemoration is as same as the actual event itself, in the light of so much talk abroad about the fragility of the country's democratic institutions.

Knowing that the country is as still under the clutches of both domestic and foreign repression, the desire for both national and social liberation will always be its call; and time and again, the ruling order still tends to say that the bedrock of both political liberation and social solidarity is necessarily the achievement of economic emancipation as shown by recent "developments".

(Still) the desire to unite and emancipate
in a still stunted, repressed society

Driven by the idea of creating a new order, economic emancipation, particularly the abolition of poverty means focusing on the common interests, objectives, and needs of the people, and having it take precedence over those of others.
And ideally, in seriously focusing on the commoner's interests, needs, and objectives, it raises living conditions and empowers communities, fosters solidarity and creates an atmosphere of freedom.

However, in a reality wherein a centuries-old repression prevails and aggravates its clear and present standing, economic emancipation, what more of political liberation and social solidarity is but an illusion parroted by those whose idea is to retain the old order. 
For as proven by the system's failure to curb unemployment, rising costs of goods and services, reluctance to a serious implementation of agrarian reform, obeisance to unjust multinational/transnational economic agreements, and treating social services as those of political patronages, hopeful words like "economic emancipation" is rather an illusion what more of being a word meant to sneer people through hearts and minds; with progress serves as a cover up for a semifeudal-semicolonial degeneration.

Sounds hardcore if not ages-old isn't it? For living in a still semifeudal-semicolonial order does not mean progress and stability, not even justice. Those who swore to uphold the status quo on the pretense of defending the constitution knows that in preserving peace and order means to have compromise with the ruling class and its interests, particularly those of foreign overlords and its multi/trans-national entities, while at the same time "trying to do with all their best to create a semlance of justice by creating 'reforms' in pursuit of averting possible discontent";
But in spite of such "efforts" and still seeing same old inconveniences, one would think and say that having an order that fails to create an atmosphere of justice despite its façade hath rather aggravates tensions than creates solidarity amongst classes, and that same atmosphere of repression against civil liberties and economic unfairness due to continuous crisis rather fails to emancipate millions of people from its current political and economic state, as well as aggravates tensions even further than "create concord amongst social classes".

And it's been 31 years and still seeing the same matter showing how the system has failed to realise the aspirations of the people; if not obviously describing the "revolution" as a counterreaction within the reaction, a thermidor after what the late dictator described his rule as a "revolution", and people who still desired to realise such profound aspirations, be it land for the landless, decent living wage for the laborers, a decent social policy that benefits the masses, industrialisation, and a nation meant to be freed socio-economically from both domestic and foreign repression, still insist that that the revolution as "not yet finished" even in this modern-day setting of wireless gadgets such as iPhones.

Reform? Restructuring? Or retention?
(And how the concerned 'within the system'
insist social justice as part of reform,
Or the system's attempt to subvert reform)

Also to think that various "reforms" and some semblance of restructuring made by the system are rather driven by the idea of ameliorating the most unpopular features of both feudalism and compradore capitalism; and most people, in spite of those "achievements" the system done, rather end skeptical if not dissatisfied and pressed further for greater change.
However, there are few concerned government officials, appointed or elected, tried their best to make programs as possible accessible and sufficient, efficient to many. The problem, however, is that as in the past, the system rides on the idea for reform, restucturing, welfare, clean and honest governance, or any other popular sentiment- but "on their terms" and not on the terms of the masses. On the first place, they invested in it as any other image building activity!
Quite strange at first knowing that those who seriously adhere to social emancipation does include "working within the system" and at the same time seeing the system itself trying to subvert the idea to make it appear theirs; perhaps let the "efforts" brought about by the present order consider a benevolent act or even a social responsibility thinking that such actions are driven by the thought of social amelioriation being those who swore to uphold public trust; but knowing that the present order seriously caters on the few and not on the many, then that act is becoming less if not nothing to do with benevolence and more of self-interest, knowing that the system whom also "provides welfare", be it in a form of "reform" or "restructuring", financial support or series of infrastructures done "for national well-being", is driven mainly by the thought of avoiding popular discontent and to stop every revolution; what more that it is treated as a mere personal sentiment than a duty of the state as the commoner who works hard and pays its dues.

Concerned officials shared this kind of concern in spite of working within the order. Besides that goddamn corruption, red tape, and favouritism, concerned government officials wanted to bring back idealism besides faith in public service, in spite of the system's failure to adhere in reform, or rather say failure to ensure the welfare of its constituents as well as uphold national dignity in an era of globalist hypocrisy.
For an example, those who stood on the side of nationalist economics tried to inject nationalist, and pro-people measures to certain policies if not debating two and fro against neoliberals and transnationals within government agencies like the National Economic Development Authority; or a Bank Manager argued against his bosses in a government bank knowing that the bank's charter has to do with funding government programs than to pursue commercial goals in pursuit of competition if not obeisance to transnational-globalist economic policies and agreements.

And this person would say that these concerned officials are driven by the idea of economic emancipation, in spite of being "within the order" yet the difference lies in its willingness to "destroy" that same poverty-creating order. After all, to use one of the late dictator's quotation:

"Of what good is democracy if it is not for the poor?"


Well, as people from all walks of life either still continuing the struggle or gave up, the country that has been still in its semi feudo-feudal setting cannot escape from its problems. And as everyone still hears debates from the session hall between those who insist genuine domestic-based development and globalist neoliberalism, of authentic agrarian reform and cash crop-oriented corporate landlordism, people knows which side has to support, and what path has ought to choose.

All for the sake of genuine and authentic economic emancipation, political liberation, and social solidarity towards national liberation even in an era of wireless gadgets, internet, and social media. Again, it's been 31 years after that revolt and unless these desires still fell on deaf ears, then expect marches and various forms of actions the system feared most.