PRUDENCE (and a busy schedule) forced me to wait until after May
10 before I began writing this rejoinder of sorts. So, as soon as
I got my finger dirtied for casting my vote, I began to put on paper
all three months of rage, disgust and incredulity I held in delicate
reserve for Bayan Muna’s hecklers.
Notwithstanding the suitability—or unsuitability—of this
rejoinder, I hope this may clarify several points raised by critics
for the ultimate benefit of the people who have placed their trust
on Bayan Muna as their party-list choice. But more on this later.
I have been a volunteer for Bayan Muna for more than two years,
and the experience has ranged from absolute exhilaration to outright
frustration. Members and officials take strength and motivation
from each other towards achieving a collective objective: to make
this election succeed. And yet some have made more sacrifices than
most, and unnecessarily paid the ultimate price of their lives.
Unknown to some, the party took a sharp stand on issues that concretely
matter to the people, such as the Maynilad “bail-out”
issue, the jeepney drivers’ clamor for a needed fare increase,
etc. Bayan Muna has even called for a 6% limit in the profits of
operators, owners, or grantees of public utility enterprises in
the hope of extending much needed protection to consumers from arbitrary
increases in the rates of essential services.
Yet despite the significance of these issues, Bayan Muna was rarely
given due opportunity in the media and other forums that are more
often geared to national candidates and the government. For three
months, we have labored to make heard Bayan Muna’s positions.
We have done so in both conventional and atypical ways, including
that which is perhaps considered the most ignoble and dreaded of
pursuits: the photo-op.
One is forced to pose in the most shameful manner, if only to humor
the whims of news photographers or cameramen. It is understandable
that in the pursuit of their profession, members of the press merely
take into account the best angles and stories they see fit. Still,
the appeal is for circumspection and appreciation of the fact that
a considerable amount of mental activity, not to mention man-hours,
went into its production and execution.
That Philippine politics is acknowledged by the cynical and resigned
as rotten and reserved for the moneyed and influential is not cured
by the fact that the party-list system which could serve as the
people’s genuine alternative representation in governance,
was not amply heard. Well, not exactly.
News space was devoted to Bayan Muna when member after member of
the party was brutally murdered. That and Norberto Gonzales’
rehashed accusations that Bayan Muna and five other progressive
party-lists are “communist fronts.” If there’s any
measure of Gonzales’ mendacity, it's his claim that Bayan Muna,
and five others have diverted “their” Priority Development
Assistance Fund to the CPP-NPA.
Firstly, of the 6 mentioned party-list groups, only Bayan Muna
has sitting representatives in Congress and are entitled their respective
PDAFs. How can the other 5 divert something they don’t have?
If only Gonzales bothered to look into the records of Bayan Muna’s
projects at the House of Representatives and other government agencies,
he would have discovered that everything was in order, and that
their beneficiaries were indeed in dire need of government aid.
Then there was Akbayan, floating such similar insinuations. I would
have understood Akbayan’s concern for media mileage given the
stiff competition for news. But to engage in mudslinging at the
expense of another party-list is unacceptable. Akbayan should have
restrained their campaign on concrete people’s issues. They
claim to carry a legitimate issue but has unfailingly attacked Bayan
Muna at every opportunity.
Naysayers may now feel free to run about the room pulling their
hair and screaming like Johnny Bravo. But first, let me relate a
minor incident at our local polling precinct.
A man who stood in line two-persons ahead of me was being conspicuously
reprimanded by a clerk for failing to write his own signature on
the voter’s list. The man humbly explained he had no idea what
a signature meant and had no practical use for it until this time
since he had been a farmer all his life.
The man directly in front of me then made a snide remark about
those “no-read, no-write” people. Not wanting to antagonize
him, I said the farmer should at least be commended for opting to
exercise his right. Then to the clerk, I said: “Ma’am,
let him vote. He can just place his thumb mark on the list,”
explaining that his signature was irrelevant since the same process
was allowed for indigenous peoples who participate in the elections
for the first time.
I have always appreciated debate as the struggle of ideas, an ultimate
appeal to reason, practically aimed at determining a higher, far
superior idea. But to constrict the debate at the level of polemics
is a practice in futility. Debate unresolved has no practical use
for anyone.
After putting up a lame defense, the clerk reluctantly handed over
the farmer’s ballot but never bothered to give instructions
on how to use it. The man then retreated to a small corner and stood
there even after I finished my turn. I approached him and offered
my seat at the polling area but he nervously declined without explaining
why.
Some contradictions are as natural as they appear, but in reality
are as contrived and superficial as a traditional politician's resumé.
I speak of Akbayan's so-called "pluralistic" stance and
grand claims that "No one has a monopoly of activism."
Of course, anyone and everyone is welcome to introduce genuine changes
in society. For its part, Bayan Muna has linked with the broadest
section of the country as possible, including businessmen, professionals,
and well-meaning politicians. But what Akbayan is suggesting in
its illusions of pluralism is that all opinions are valid, including
those of the fascists, racists, sexists and all undesirables a skater
friend of mine has classified under "Nazi dogs."
I will never know if the farmer was able to cast his vote, but
if reason did not get the better out of the situation, he would
never have gone as far. By the standards of Akbayan, all contests
will be held in agonizing protraction, and progress consigned to
echoing delay. There is no more appeal to reason, morality and sheer
good sense. The man would have probably gone home and could never
have exercised his right.
Some use pluralism as an excuse for indifference. They take credit
for life's vicissitudes while enjoying their rarefied positions
in society. It's amazing how one can claim to be plural, but remain
intolerant of others' beliefs. While Akbayan vows to respect the
diversity of ideas, it does not reserve judgment for the armed rebels
and their so-called form of government. I will not justify the activities
of the NPA—Akbayan's quarrel with the rebels are between the
two of them. But kindly leave Bayan Muna alone. It is quite unpardonable
that unable to mount a serious campaign, Akbayan would attack Bayan
Muna and link it with the armed rebels at every turn. I remind Akbayan
that such lumping together has literally spelled life and death
for our members.
Akbayan claims, as the military does every so often, that Bayan
Muna is a communist front for the simple fact that it does not condemn
the NPA’s actuations. This challenge is as unfair as to conclude
that Akbayan’s failure to articulate on the Maynilad issue
means its tacit approval of the anomalous deal. And then Akbayan
would cry foul if some groups (not Bayan Muna) brand it as pseudo-reformist
and closet reactionary when it fails to take a stand on the killings
of our members?
Will condemning and denouncing the NPA effectively stop the murders?
Bayan Muna has explicitly renounced violence and the armed path
when it participated in the 2001 elections. Still unconvinced? Ask
the Comelec. But instead of doing their research, Akbayan would
want us to give in to the military's impossible demand: to repudiate
something we are not guilty of carrying out. The party has opted
for legal, electoral participation. Forty-three Bayan Muna members
are already dead. Those responsible for the killings are close to
turning our ploughshares into swords.
What is Akbayan trying to change? Or the more apt question is:
Is Akbayan wanting to make changes at all? If Akbayan is striving
for their plural dogma, there is enough of it right now, wherein
fascists are given free reign to kill and brand as communists those
yearning for legitimate and pro-people reforms.
Akbayan wants all voices heard but not Bayan Muna, in eerie parallel
with the ultra-rightist, militarist elements in the establishment.
By playing up to this line, Akbayan is becoming, at the very least,
an objective instrument of the intolerant forces in society. If
Akbayan is serious in its attempt to reconcile its pluralism with
a system that is essentially brutal and exclusivist, then good luck.
All things considered, though, perhaps the society it truly envisions
is the narrow now.
