Is it for a "Reformist Orderism?" or a "Partyless Democracy?"

Is it for a "Reformist Orderism?" or a "Partyless Democracy?"

(notes from someone who adheres to authoritarianism
while preaching democratic processes)

At one time this person read some posts of a young commentator in a known social media site. Mostly long tracts full of appeals to "reform", he seems to be clinging to the idea that there are chances of national renewal through state institutions be it through lobbying "concerned" lawmakers to those of "critically" favouring actions done by the executive; sounds too ideal for him as he tries to be pragmatic when it comes to dealing with such affairs, using terms such as "balance between the masses and the elites", of state acting as an arbiter or a referee, if not trying to create a "catch-all policy" that could benefit everyone "for the good of the country".

However, in reading his notes, this person finds him contradicting, ranging those from "advocating a domestic-based industrialisation programme" and "instilling nationalism and protecting national patrimony" while at the same time "favours unhampered flow of foreign investment" and "the right for foreigners to take over utilities"; or "supports freedom of expression" while "calling for imprisonment for those who blaspheme", interestingly annoying.

But one post that find this person note-able is his appeal to institutionalism, if not legalism as part of democracy, and an ideal vehicle of change; he sees that social change can, or must be through legal channels and institutions be it government departments, legislators, and the courts; and most if not some of which notes are intending to "knock at the heart" of every official to make things efficient if not make amends; a "change from above" so to speak. 

One example would be how President Duterte done a presidential proclamation ordering to end contractualisation. The commenter did praise his act thinking that contractualisation is illegal and therefore it has to be resolved, if not insisted that the president hath to prod Congress to pass a law on ending contractualization that would balance the interests of employers and employees.
But whether there's a presidential proclamation ordering contractualisation to end or there should be a law done by interest-seeking legislators, did that illegal act really end or just compelled by an action outside Malacañang to make it illegal? There are actions brought about by the striking workers insisting that they should be regularised, but, did the law regularised them? Instead they end being truncheoned what more that they are maligned as subversives and therefore be punished by law! Ironically, it is under the labour code that workers hath the right to strike, so is the commenter recognise that saidth right? Or still suggesting that it has to be resolved through government authorities no mattwr how most of them are kowtowing to entrenched entities with vested interests?

From his suggestion it appears to be "Rizalian" in a way he favors the personhood of Crisostomo Ibarra, or Isagani and Señor Pasta in "Noli me Tangere" over those of Simoun and Cabesang Tales in "El Filibusterismo", insisting the idea of peaceful reform in a time people demand for action; however, the difference between what this writer sought and those from Rizal was the latter recognised the struggle by any means necessary as he himself, despite favouring reform, doesn't mean he disagreed altogether the idea of direct action as Bonifacio advocated (but instead create conditions according to some historians); while the latter commenter rather clings to the idea that there is no need for mass action, let alone the legisators or the president do their work according to their promises, or limit people's actions to those of lobbying and negotiations concluding with compromises enough to appear "win-win" for the government and its subjects.

Thus, it wouldn't be surprising from the commenter that he insists stability while accommodating some certain changes enough to please people. Otherwise, that person would have been desired a "democracy" that has to be "orderly" like what Marcos Loyalists, Duterte fanatics, and even Yellows adhere for; but following their views, that order isn't democratic at all but corporatist as it follows a traditional Family structure, wherein instead of constituents, a citizen is but a subject to a higher being similar to a father to his children, and while granted the privilege (rather than right) to vote and enjoy some semblance of expressions, he/she has little participation in decision-making. Or as the elders would say "do not interfere in one's discussion"*

And knowing that these "commons" such as that commenter adheres to order and stability, and at the same time cited the examples of 1896 for an example how a country attains its freedom, a concerned would've rather think if not ask "why not be like the women of Malolos who petitioned the Governor General? Least it was peaceful unlike those of the unruly ones in Balintawak?" Or the pre-EDSA scenarios wherein would cite positive the example of the late Salvador Laurel taking part in the Batasan election as opposed to those of Lorenzo Tanada and Jose Diokno; the latter be deemed as "chaotic" of course, if not useless for it does not achieve anything good for the opposition then.

***

Anyway, for knowing that if people idealise "democracy" as an example of a government suitable for the Philippines, and at the same time adheres, if not clings to an order whose leaders equate their words to laws, perhaps some of these Filipinos would have still cling to that damn word "democracy", but instead of idealising liberal or libertarian democracy with all the elections and brouhaha, they would have settled in just plain, authoritarian, or "organic" kind of "democracy" whose political goal of ultimate order and ultimate harmony brings ultimate freedom- and all that is required of the citizen is to carry out his role that includes obeisance to law and adherence to order and subjected to discipline; as opposed to the other, which posits freedom as something that can and should be achieved by the individual in the short term, even at the expense of things such as material well-being, and sees as an element of this freedom a "freedom from government" wherein the individual is able to exercise "freedom" in his own terms to the extent that they do not contravene the law.

The latter may sound chaotic, especially in a time people end getting angry at stagnant wages and growing inequality have rebelled against established governments and turned to political extremes- that made this person, in assessing that commenter stating, rejects revolution, let alone order and "reform" in that organic democracy.

And speaking of that "organic democracy" men like Manuel Luis Quezon tend to look at it as suitable in Filipino setting- at one time he even described it as a "partyless" variant for he dismisses all parties, regardless of ideology or "principles", due to disgraced leaders if not they “end up invoking the police power against the people….” he even argued that political parties did create partisanship which is incompatible with good government.

From his personal experience, Quezon, who himself a member of the Nacionalista Party, observed that even self-professed patriots were sometimes swayed by party passions, and thus jeopardized public interests for party considerations; he also described that political parties are selfish in character as it seek their own good even at the expense of national interests; and party politics, party opposition, or even party spirit rather cause inefficiency in running state affairs as it delays in the execution of much needed reforms, as well as ineptitude in facing difficult situations.

Otherwise, he idealised the early years of the American occupation, or even during the first republic, wherein:

1.) The governor elected in every province was generally the best man (for during the 1906 elections  political parties had just been newly established and partisan spirit was virtually nonexistent); 

2.) The ones elected to the Assembly were generally the best irrespective of party affiliations (or during the elections of the first Philippine Assembly where most of the people were for immediate independence and, consequently, most of the candidates belonged to the party of the people); and,

3.) “people were elected because of their personal worth and known patriotism and ability, and not because of their loyalty to any party.” (as the initial years of the existence of the U.S. government political parties were not yet organized, if not suppressed as most expressed separatist beliefs.)

Sounds ideal, especially that the late commonwealth president wished "unity" as a nation, if not getting influenced by the leaders from both east and west, trying to syncretise along with Filipino sensibilities (which actually a fusion of east and west too!). He sees himself as a developmentalist cacique, yes, a cacique who tries to update the old order by adopting then-modern views, including those of providing improvement (or bluntly speaking, comfort) to the people in order to lessen if not cut possible dissent.

In fairness, Quezon said:

"If we do away with partisan spirit; if cooperation rather than opposition is made the basis upon which the Government of the Philippines is to cooperate; if liberty is properly understood and practised; and if the aim of government is the well-being of the people as a whole and not of a privileged class, even if it be a property-owning class, then democracy in the Philippines will endure and we shall be able to demonstrate that the natural and the best government of man is the democratic government."

From this perhaps the commenter whom this person got stumbled on his posts would have agreed to this kind of "cooperating" gesture despite appearing to be "opposing" thinking that kind of democracy as "controlled" and be similar to those of Pinochet; if not that trying to insist that the democracy the Philippines has as "better" so long as there are capable administrators than ineffective politicians (when in fact it's vice versa), if not making reforms be aligned with the laws even the laws rather benefited rather those from the few.

***

In reading both the commenter's lobbyist-like statements (which are mostly full of optimism towards the regime) and Quezon's desire for a partyless kind of democracy (which is actually an organic and directed kind of), it seems that yours truly would say that there are people who wanted to see a country whose government has to be purely administrative, orderly, and just enough to represent the people. 

However, it may end impossible in the eyes of many, especially in an order where repression and unjust prevails, or thinking that not all patriots who administer are really patriotic so long as the issue is about the economy (and therefore why not let foreigners having right to exploit "least they benefit us"), or even getting confused after seeing statements such as recognising freedom of religion and expression while insisting that blasphemy has to be illegal and be punished with three years imprisonment under the civil code- what's next? After reading the preamble which says "almighty god" and after listening to the president swearing the words "so help me god" will the Philippines put crucifixes or "the ten commandments" in the courts and in the government offices?

Anwyay, the commenter would hath still trying to deny its own self as an orderist as he tries to profess himself as "for democracy and the rule of law" the way he tries to defend liberalism as "a political philosophy that espouses individual freedoms" and "one of the tenets of democracy in the entire world, not only here in the Philippines." But his so-called "critical collaboration" with a regime known for its adherence to orderism if not his almost admiration for military regimes diminishes his defence for that "liberalism", no matter how he looks at it as necessary to maintain stability.

Or is he prefering an almost-nightwatchman state which the role of the state as to make ensure that the market continues its job on the view that "freedoms" are to be upheld? Apologies for the commenter knowing that his views be worth opposing to those who express the need for a radical change which the present order prefers not to push through despite popular clamour. But reality hath still made people to realise that change is by all means necessary. Lobbying and negotiations can be good means to assert change, so are protest marches, but will people enjoy a watered down version of something that has to resolved? For this no wonder why protests happen, if not being subversive is also being patriotic.

Sources:

1940a. The essence of democracy. 16 July. In Partyless democracy. By Ricardo R.Pascual. Quezon City: University of the Philippines (1952).
1940b. A partyless in governmentin a democracy. 7 August.In Partyless democracy. By Ricardo R. Pascual. Quezon City: University of the Philippines (1952).
1940c. The elimination of partisanship in a democracy, 17 August. In Partyless democracy. By Ricardo R. Pascual. Quezon City: University of the Philippines (1952).

*based from the Tagalog saying: "wag kang mangealam sa usapan ng mga matatanda"

Expect more actions from those protests

Expect more actions from those protests

The recent protest actions hath exposed the administration its failure to take into action its supposed promises.

By not heeding the call of the striking workers in Nutriasia, it showed its half-hearted intent to put an end to regularisation and to support their plight in their unjust working conditions; by being aloof at the clamour of the farmers at Cavite and some other provinces, it shows the regime favouring those of the landed despots keeping their interests despite promises to push further agrarian reform and rural development; and by threatening the urban poor over those abandoned houses with gunfire, shows how the regime fails to resolve homelessness and means to uplift living standards.

And despite all the struggles in every corner slanderers in various forms may continue to make hell towards those whom took that direct action. Perhaps because they see those direct actions as disorderly and seditious, of course they would rally on the side of order no matter what it is deemed unjust but "benefits" them with some piecemeal "changes". "Right or wrong" as one may say- as they chose to support an order even at the expense of the common folk. One would even described the groups as paid hacks, often used the distorted if not false reports to justify that those who struggle are indeed paid hacks without even investigating. The recent occupation of abandoned houses by an urban poor group is one example, they've been slandered that false reports been churned such as those so-called 'leaders' who actually lumpens trying to make profit in the struggle of the homeless, or those who failed to see collective efforts out of selfish intents; so is the recent strike actions led by the workers of Nutriasia at Bulacan and the farmers in Cavite as hindrance to capitalist-oriented "progress and development", with the former deemed as mere contractuals-turned-rabblerousers and latter as meant to be evicted for squatting.

Quite usual isn't it? For living in a proletarian nation like the Philippines these actions did provoke fear and tremor on the side of order; way back before a commentator expressed that a social volcano awaits to explode as crises brought waves of actions pointing against the ones who sworn to uphold and protect. And as in the past, it is really expecting that the regime as becoming same as its own predecessors- as it swears to upheld an oppressive status quo, and from it this diminishes their promise of change and upliftment for the common people whom voted for months ago. how the system, in keeping the interests of landed gentries and of big businesses sneered the common folk with promises of reforms and inclusive development- when in fact these consolidates their footholds at the expense of the oppressed masses.

From this then no wonder why protest actions happen- regardless of all the slanders, a wave of strikes is deemed possible throughout as these controversial topics of homelessness, contractualisation, unjust labor conditions, increased cost of living, low wages, and subservient to interests, continue to prevail regardless of their promise of reform in an actually existing semifeudal-semicolonial order.

Struggling for Liberation despite 'Hindipendence'

Struggling for Liberation despite 'Hindipendence'

(Or "notes after Hindipendence and how people
chose to continue the national-social struggle")

As the country celebrates its "independence day", let the people first see at some major realities the country is really experiencing- such as those deemed inconvenient.

For at first it is indeniable that International high finance, via its domestic stooges still continues to maintain its grip over the country. And since everyone knows that a chunk of the national budget goes to paying debts to multinational moneylenders if not those of its neighbouring countries, every Filipino felt its continuous hardships especially in seeing prices of commodities and services increasing, while seeing their wages insufficient and their living standards as unjust.

For as these elites afforded to say "Change is coming" under Duterte, they all invested in the leader's tough guy stance towards the people, knowing that the people had voted him with all the promises of security and stability if not an answer to the problems left by past administrations.

However, that administration whom promises that so-called "change" is actually doing a continuity for as the concerned knows how Duterte, as any other president, had to continue the programs of past administrators, abit with different names and amended with new terms, as well as stresses its firm commitment to upheld the status quo, even at the expense of the people.

"You shall devour all the peoples", this may be the hidden statement of despotic landlords, interest-seeking compradores, and corrupt bureaucrats as they insist their version of development which is based on profit than the welfare of the people-usually cloaked with terms like initiative, competition, cooperation, freedom, anything that pleases the people when in fact tries to keep the country held by multinationals and its domestic stooges.

For sure initially most people find a ray of hope on those developments, especially under a regime whose toughness means action, and action means a myriad of fulfillment- and Duterte, just like his own predecessors would have taken pride in its various programs, its dispensation of justice, and other numerous promises that hath been churned throughout social media to those of television, radio, and print- enough to shatter the people's will to resist, bit by bit including those of taking over the most important structures of the state body.

But despite all these "achievements", or even claims that "change" has taken root over the country, the fact that the administration sworn to upheld the status quo it all means having repression, injustice, corruption be prevail- for as everyone knows that the regime had its bloodied records (using drug war as one of its alibis) and incompetent bureaucrats (like in the case of Tulfo-Teo or Mocha Uson), its economic programs created a negative effect especially towards the working masses whose living wages remain low despite high costs of goods and services.

The TRAIN law which supposed to uplift the laborers with promises of take home pay hath rather made these costs increased, if not listening from its economists justifing low wages. With this did diminish that kind of "change" been blared about. The TRAIN-suppored BUILD BUILD BUILD program rather benefit moneylenders as well, that in turn affected the taxpayers with direct and indirect taxes if not slow developments or even chances of corrupt practises; and will that JOBS JOBS JOBS truly benefit workers amidst the fact that Contractualisation and low wages as hot topics by many? There are more matters which people find the administration worth to ridicule than given praise, including those of its foreign policies that regardless of its assumed "independence" from foreign intervenors it didn't even repeal any of the unequal agreements that deprives the country its chance of genuine development for decades.

All in all, the "change" being babbled by the Duterte administration is nothing but a continuity with new terms but same essences, if not a rhetoric meant to sneer every Filipino through the eye and ear despite the fact they are being exploited. Will the people get contented in seeing a country still a vassal of American, Chinese, Japanese and other interests? Will the country remain deprived of chances for genuine national development that benefits those of the laboring masses? No other regime that swore to maintain the semicolonial-semifeudal order would truly adhere to defend its country's independence, safeguard its democracy, and empowering its people.

And thus no wonder why the Filipino people still continues its decades-old, yet still unfinished struggle. In commemorating its Declaration of Independence 120 years ago and honoring those who fought and died for its desire for national independence, it is worth to heed the late Salud Algubre to carry forward the struggle brought about by Rizal, Bonifacio, and his cohorts:

 "No uprising fails. Each one is a step in the right direction. In a long march to final victory, every steps counts, every individual matters, every organization forms part of the whole.”

And all these are for genuine independence, national sovereignty, and social liberation.

"Still bound by Finance Imperialism"

"Still bound by Finance Imperialism"

(Or how the Philippines still bound by Yankee-Multinational
Finance capital and the need to put an end to its dependency)

It's been decades passed since Filipinos remember how it's former coloniser self-proclaiming itself as the developer of the islands.

Driven by statements such as "benevolent assimilation", followed by all the numerous contributions shown be it in a form of infrastructure to those of modern machinery, the United States did afford to "brag" that their brand of civilisation created a modern colony enough comparable with the centuries-old ones in the far east, what more that it afforded to provide some semblance of self-rule, which was a product of serious lobbying and negotiations by known Filipinos, that even at the expense of their lives it resulted to various agreements, including those of its fundamental laws that made Filipinos unconditionally indebted to them.

And from those experiences no wonder why the late Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated in his radio broadcast to the Filipinos his promise, that:

“I give to the people of the Philippines my solemn pledge that their freedom will be redeemed and their independence established and protected. The entire resources, in men and in material, of the United States stand behind that pledge. It is not for me or for the people of this country to tell you where your duty lies. We are engaged in a great and common cause. I count on every Philippine man, woman, and child to do his duty. We will do ours.” 

Sounds full of optimism indeed those promising times; especially if complimented by some promises from again, according to Roosevelt:

“Over a third of a century ago, the United States, as a result of a war which had its origin in the Caribbean Sea, acquired sovereignty over the Philippine Islands, which lie many thousands of miles from our shores across the widest of oceans. Our Nation covets no territory; it desires to hold no people against their will over whom it has gained sovereignty through war.

“In keeping with the principles of justice and in keeping with our traditions and aims, our Government for many years has been committed by law to ultimate independence for the people of the Philippine Islands whenever they should establish a suitable Government capable of maintaining that independence among the Nations of the world. We believe that the time for such independence is at hand.

“A law passed by the seventy-second Congress over a year ago was the initial step, providing the methods, conditions and circumstances under which our promise was to be fulfilled. That Act provided that the United States would retain the option of keeping certain military and naval bases in the Islands after actual independence had been accomplished.

“As to the military bases, I recommend that this provision be eliminated from the law and that these bases be relinquished simultaneously with the accomplishment of final Philippine independence.

“As to the naval bases, I recommend that the law be so amended as to provide for the ultimate settlement of this matter on terms satisfactory to our own Government and that of the Philippine Islands.

“I do not believe that other provisions of the original law need be changed at this time. Where imperfections or inequalities exist, I am confident that they can be corrected after proper hearing and in fairness to both peoples.”

However, despite that atmosphere of freedom independence doesn't mean an unconditional one people idealised of. For behind that recognition lies agreements wherein it favours its former coloniser especially those on trade, commerce, and security. Roosevelt's death negated his statements, reducing the spirit of independence into a mere testament when in fact retains its vassalage to its master.
There were attempts to insist independence in its fullest form, but it end failed to succeed what more of its leaders maligned, sidelined,or even killed such as in the case of Recto, whose patriotism been cut short by a vial of poison.  

And one American legacy was and is how free-trade ideologues have succeeded in imposing their will upon the world under the guise of “globalization.”, those years of reconstruction and genuine self-rule left a generation wherein it was and is easier to think (and therefore to say) that foreign capitalists can act only as catalystic agents to stimulate local investment, what more of its agreements regardless of its unequal character. 

Sounds too much as this person ought to say that despite being situated in the Southeast Asian region, that the Filipinos, reared in its colonised upbringings, made itself a stranger among the Asiatic peoples, who although recognises the country's potential as a growing country, it will remain skeptic in its drivel to take its own path-given its inherent dependency to its former coloniser as well as other "developed countries" the country depended on.
Cannot blame them for thinking that way, knowing that as they removed their clutches they started to develop their own using their inherent thoughts as well as those their colonisers taught them; but the Filipino, particlularly its system, treats its own struggle for national rebirth as a cultural facade, and if taken seriously it rather lead to a series of debates. It did tried to stimulate production for its own benefit, especially when patriotic fervour is strong, but it end shelved in in favour of its usual dependence if not getting threatened by those whose policies obviously hinder development if not sneered by promises of cheap goods and hot flow of investments.

Looking back at the past
(and how that past still continues to be debated)

Speaking of debates if not messages from various personages, this writeup looks back at history, especially on how men like Manuel Roxas stubbornly defend the idea of parity rights as necessary for the country's development even at the expense of patrimony.

Based from an old government-sponsored pamphlet containing the speeches regarding the pros and cons of parity rights, the then president-elect explained the United States as a benevolent country that "guides" and "cares" to its underdeveloped counterparts if not trying to relive the past how that country liberated the Philippines from the Japanese occupiers, as well as insisting the benefits of free trade and making the country one of its markets.

They say parity is an extraordinary concession. Why should we give this right, this privilege to Americans when we are not giving them to Englishmen? To us, that is an extraordinary concession. But so are the concessions which Americans are giving to us. Not only extraordinary but very extraordinary, not only very extraordinary but unprecedented in the whole history of the world since the dawn of civilization. They say that "parity" is a concession demanded by Wall Street in the United States in order to exploit this nation. Where is the authority for that statement? Wall Street is not interested in the Philippines. America is not an Imperialistic nation. Not because Americans are angels, but because America is such and wealthy nation and has such tremendous resources that she does not have to be an imperialistic nation. An Imperialistic nation arises when that nation needs products or goods vital to her existence. So if that nation cannot get them in good fashion, it grabs the territory that has them.

America has an excess of raw materials. America does not need raw materials from the Philippines. It might be convenient for the Unitef States to have some raw materials from the Philippines like Copra, like Hemp, like Tobacco, or Shell Buttons. I wonder how many nations would be imperialistic just to get shell buttons! I wonder how many nations would become imperialistic to het copra from the Philippines when copra is produced in many parts of the world; when everybody knows that there are many well-known substitutes for vegetable oil. Hemp? Everybody knows that during the war we did not export a single poind of hemp from this country. And yet America did not die. There are many other fibers that can substitute for hemp, and steel cables and synthetic materials can be fashioned now for use in place of cordage made from hemp. There is nothing we can produce in this country that is absolutely necessary to the economy of the United States.

But they say that the concession we grant to the United States is extraordinary. So is the free trade granted to us by America extraordinary. What nation in the world would not want to enjoy free trade with the United States? Is there any nation in the world that would not give quite a lot for the privilege of selling in the great Ametican market? But contrary to her traditional foreign policy, contrary to her commitments in many powers, America has entered into an agreement with the Philippines whereby for 28 years, Philippine products will be admitted into the United States, free of duty, with certain modification at the end of the first eight years. Isn't that extraordinary?

- Manuel Roxas

From this, one would say that his statement was more of a reaction from a nationalist-oriented policy brought about by the Commonwealth and the Japanese Occupation. Roxas sought that with the United States as an important ally in Asia, it also means better prospects of assistance in various forms of development, even at the expense of local expertise- especially those of sugar interests, which saw in those agreements as their economic salvation.
And knowing that as the country was severely tarnished by the war, and its economy struggling due to low output growth and with high unemployment rates, Roxas finds it necessary those US-sponsored acts (Bell trade Act and War Damage Act) in order to support reconstruction activities regardless of being seen as a stumbling block to the full flowering of Filipino nationalism particularly those of economic protectionism and domestic-based economic development- if not a means to retain the friendship of American officials who had helped whitewash him of charges of wartime collaboration with the Japanese occupiers.

Ironically, Roxas himself was once advocating Filipino products and ingenuity through his "Bagong Katipunan", so for sure one would think why would he end becoming an American stooge? Sounds opportunistic isn't he? And in speaking of "stumbling blocks", issues like sovereignty, the right to tariff protection, currency autonomy, and taxing authority, hath been the topics which both those in favour and those who oppose been debating about.

On the other hand, a statement from the late Claro M. Recto recalled a prewar attempt to industrialise the country only to be blocked by the policies brought about by its trade relations with its colonial master. From this, the late senator expressed seriously that the country, being independent has to create its own direction than retaining its vassalage that continues until present.

There was an attempt in the Philippines at industrialisation. An attempt embodied in a programme enunciated by his excellency in 1933 when he made his then very famous, although now forgotten speech, before the student body of the Ateneo de Manila. This attempt, this programme of industrialisation was formally announced by the late President Quezon in his first inaugural address as president if the Philippine Commonwealth.

President Quezon had six years before the war to industrialise the country. We know that almost nothing was accomplished. And not for lack of money. In those years millions were pouring into the Philippines from the excise taxes that were being collected from our products in the United States. If President Quezon was not able to achieve the industrialisation of our country- ably assisted through was for some years by our present president who was then the Secretary of Finance- let us not ascribe this failure either to the President or to his Secretary of Finance. 

In all justice, the blame lies in, the main cause is, our free trade relations with the United States.

- Claro M. Recto 

And the poof of prewar attempts for industrialisation was characterized by an effort to free the Philippines from foreign domination, during which was born the Philippine National Bank that broke the country away from the dominance of such foreign banks as Bank of America, National City Bank and Hong Kong Shanghai Bank. Every effort was made to be economically self sufficient with the birth of the National Development Company and its subsidiaries like the National Coconut Corp. (NACOCO), National Food Corp., National Textile Corp., Rice and Corn Administration (RICOA), among others, liberating the country from the monopoly of multinationals like Proctor and Gamble, Unilever, and importers of food and clothing.
Even postwar industrial institutions like the private-owned Republic Flour Mills and the Philippine National Oil Company, were also products of those attempts, whose personages behind were driven by the ideal of breaking away from multinational dependency and to assert independence via a self-reliant economy.

Other than Recto, Rafael Alunan Sr. also recognises the need to revive Philippine industry through reconstruction and investing on Filipino ingenuity as necessary ensuring national survival in the time of war, with himself as secretary for Agriculture and Commerce:

"More and more, the production of essential commodities is being increased to replace finished products that had to be imported formerly. Among the goods now being turned out by factories to replace the old imports are cassava flour, corn flour, rice flour, in substitution for wheat flour; alcohol for motive power to replace gasoline; cleanser, toilet soap, canned goods, etc. The production of toilet soap has been expanded to an appreciable extent, and filter mats made of coir are being manufactured to be used by soap and lard factories in lieu of asbestos. 

Some 1,500 local factories operating in Manila and in nearby provinces are now engaged on the processing and manufacturing of goods for everyday use, such as flour, starch, soap, matches, preserved fish, chocolate, coffee, biscuits, and other foodstuffs, etc. This is an encouraging indication of the significant changes in the phases of Philippine industries."

- Rafael Alunan Sr.

Sounds idealistic especially that out of survival a country has to stimulate production, cultivate ingenuity, and promote self-reliance; while at the same time unpleasing as the Japanese were rather forcing them as an occupied country to produce for the occupier's benefit while propagandists telling how that war and national survival requires strong political will and social cohesion-even at the expense of rights, in a way Kim Munhollland reported a widespread consensus among historians regarding the Vichy regime as a broadly stated desire to regenerate a decadent state and society that had become corrupted by an ambient lassitude, secularism, and hedonism under the Third Republic by returning to earlier and purer values and imposing a greater discipline and dynamism upon the industrial order.
And as a patriot perhaps both Recto and Alunan Sr. expressed concern and hope that a country, if truly adheres to its desire for progress and retaining its independence has to painstakingly set the foundations such as those of a self-reliant economy. The former knows that the country did have funds to industrialise if not for the policies that hinders it, while the latter, knowing that the country being occupied by a wartime power, tried to make sure that the country least stimulate enough to ensure its survival.

But again, the postwar generation and its succeeding ones left an impression that foreign investment if not being lended by multinational moneylending agencies as necessary for national development- leaving the country at the hands of commercial interests instead of building solid foundations such as those of industry.  True that the agreements lasted for several decades (until 1974), but the impression continues as there are those who actively seeks foreign investment using a variety of alibis such as to generate employment, and laws such as the Foreign Investment Act (R.A. 7042, 1991, amended by R.A. 8179, 1996) gradually liberalized the entry of foreign investment into the Philippines.



Still, the debate continues

(With same entites benefiting)

As in the past, the debate between economic protectionism and liberalisation remains especially amongst the learned. Both did spew words like "oligarchs" if not "sellouts", given their interests prevailing than those of the people- but they fail to distinguish which is protectionist or liberalist among the elites whose primary intent is to maintain their interests.

They look at Ayala, Sy, Ty, Tan, Pangilinan as examples of those elites. Of course they appear to be privileged, Noblesse Oblige-driven personages in the socio-economic arena, trying to make profit while throwing some crumbs in its tiresome subjects. They would done themselves in Barong Tagalog and singing the national anthem, putting some patriotic flavor in their statements and promising to support various forms of economic developments which includes currying foreign investment and keeping wages low for the workers; but, after hearing statements from the government promising to curb their power in favour of empowering the commons, have they already curbed? For sure apologists would have cited the examples of Lucio Tan and Mighty Corporation, if not threatening the Lopezes and Pangilinan, but how about the other bigger ones like those who ruled over the enclaves of Makati and Pasig?

So are the multinationals whom been described as an "alternative" to those oligarchs.  With "economic liberalisation" presented as an alternative, the lessening of government restrictions, privatisation, and subservience to the international market has been the agenda that pleases those of the compradores and bureaucrats. They would even make various alibis such as maintaining or increasing their competitiveness as business environments, if not bluntly stating that  only through globalised capitalism, with its  so-called free markets and free trade, or even free borders and less to none government interventions, a literal interpetation of laissez faire, as the best ways to build wealth, distribute services and to grow a society's economy.

but come to think of it- if protectionism meant economic power at the hands of the oligarchs, then how come economic liberalisation also involves the same oligarchic entities who stubbornly keeping their interests? Isn't that Liberalisation meant dismantling their power? Yet how come the compradore-landlord nature of these oligarchs find economic liberalisation pleasing as it "updates" their antiquated existence? The ruling class hath remain united for an oligarchy to remain in power and maintain its survival. They see appeals as thoughts to toy with- the way they did made factories out of patriotic sentiment, while at the same time privatising state assets to curry outside investment. The ruling class doesn't really care about the commons despite throwing scraps and crumbs at them-for least it provides them with sustenance so to speak in exchange for unjust agreements and conditions.

In fact, some of them would even look at the example of Japan during the last years of the Tokugawa shogunate and the rise of the Mikado as the absolute ruler- it did curry foreign investment, technology, knowledge, anything necessary for its modernisation; but, the government was also involved in economic modernization, providing a number of "model factories" to facilitate the transition to the modern period, as well as built railroads, improved roads, and inaugurated a land reform programme to prepare the country for further development. so was the Zaibutsus who were once former Daimyos and Samurais who end invested in the use of modern technology both for the country and their interests, others, like in the case of Matsushita, did afford to babble "social justice" as one of its policies behind their industry, as if trying to put morality in managing the entire enterprise.
So was Taiwan or even South Korea that did the same patriotic-driven procedure: It carried out an import substitution policy, taking what was obtained by agriculture to give support to the industrial sector, trading agricultural product exports for foreign currency to import industrial machinery, thus developing the industrial sector. It did raised tariffs, controlled foreign exchange, and restricted imports in order to protect domestic industry. But these came the birth of conglomerates amongst the privileged.

These experiences may sound quite decades if not centuries old, but in developing countries it continues to remain relevant given their resource, labor power, and patriotic desire for full-scale development. In fact, these countries also happened to have their own elites, but in fairness to them it tried much to prioritise national interest, the problem in the Philippines was and is- how these developments which meant for the development of the country been treated half-hearted, if not wholly rhetorical- or bluntly telling that not all of them was carrying the same mindset as Salvador Araneta or Claro M. Recto.

The Oligarchs, regardless of their adaptability to modernity, would rather act Lockean as they tried to retain a good, old-fashioned system of feudalism and slavery in order “that we may avoid erecting a numerous democracy…” It is natural for them to see an unjust order, if not distorting the idea of "noblesse oblige" for their benefit especially in a time of neoliberal-globalist "modernity". On the first place, if the Philippines experience progress, then why agriculture remains less developed than those of its neighbours? Of less inclination if not total disdain towards industrialisation and promotion of science and technology? And rather a massive consumerist base depending on consumer goods? The compradore nature of these oligarchs rather clings to their space despite recognising the need for industrialising a country abundant in resources-but will they do so? They would rather act Lockean if not almost Jeffersonian as they insist the agrarian-commercial nature of the country and hath to be retained while letting some manufacturing be set upon for a trade. In fact, speaking of that former US President, Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn described him "as an Agrarian Romantic who dreamt of a republic governed by an elite of character and intellect".

Perhaps in a desire to have an enlightened elite, very few of these "elites" could ever grasp the enlightenment as what Salvador Araneta or Claro M. Recto has especially if the desire is for the development of the nation and the welfare of its people, or even those of Luis Jalandoni and Jose Maria Sison who transcend their class upbringings as he favours those of the commons a la Frederick Engels whose experiences as a manager made he transcend from his background and instead favours the need for revolutionary change. All imbued with a good character and intellect, these had to go down from the hill as they heed and learn from the common folks which actually constitutes a nation.



Conclusion

Sorry if to look at the past for an example, but that past remains relevant amongst those who wanted to see the country remain contented in its setting as well as those who insist to break away from it. True that the Philippines is a wealthy country. Wealthy country whose majority of its inhabitants wallow in poverty- and everyone still always say with pride that the land is rich in natural resources from the mountain to the sea, but who is to benefit that wealth what more of the development being shown and felt upon? The late Roxas, and so is his successors, would rather say that let the foreigners do the job while his compatriots to the manual task-or as what he said:

"Some Americans are coming―trained engineers, trained technicians and technologists, trained miners, trained lumbermen, who will help us finance and develop our natural resources."

True but the question is, who is to benefit that? The people who invest their brawn or those who profit from it? In fairness, there are good foreigners who seriously and selflessly focus on developing the country, but most rather chose to exploit and gain profit from it even at the expense of those who seriously worked for- besides that, there are good compatriots who wanted to share their expertise just like those foreigners the system looked upon to.

And from these experiences no wonder why there are those who insist a fair share especially those who seriously worked for. The centuries-old unfairness has created a generation wherein people find it natural to depend on the moneylender to fund to the extent of having properties be mortgaged, if not undergoing to an agreement that appears as just when in fact it unveils its contrary- enough to mock the government’s so-called financial experts as narrow-minded misers who justifies borrowing for "various projects" or investments while at the same time giving crumbs to those who seriously and actually worked for its fulfillment, and issuing taxes directly to them.

On the other hand, nothing is wrong in needing foreign investments and foreign loans as a palliative relief to modernize the economy especially if these will “provide the country with the least costly access to needed technology, products and markets”; but at first, instead of prioritising on attracting foreign investments, the government, being a steward on behalf of the nation, should first ensure its control over key local industries, utilities, and services, as well as place national interest and public welfare above local and foreign big business interests.
Also for a country to truly benefit from foreign investments, these should be directed, if not planned in accordance with genuine domestic development, with close government monitoring and regulation, rather than letting those investments leave at the hands of interests, as they themselves sells the country altogether to the moneylenders as what Roxas sr. and his successors adhere for; for such agreements is actually a two-way road one should look on to. Countries like Sri Lanka, and a few from Africa end indebted to the Chinese as the latter provided loans on them in exchange for some agreements, so are other countries who end at the hands of moneylenders like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

With these lessons, perhaps, makes a concerned suggest that to have a productive nation first requires an immense national effort, a community-based perseverance that justifies a nation's survival, development, and maturity over those of total dependency on foreign loans and aid (in a way the late Thomas Sankara saying that "he who feeds you, controls you.") in exchange for selling its own patrimony.

From this lies a renaissance of National Dignity.