In part that difference may be attributable to the difference in our roles as journalists: As an editor, I seek only to describe the world as I find it; as an opinion columnist, and a historian to boot, he seeks to interpret the world, and perhaps change it.
By sheer coincidence, one of the examples John provides, in his counterpoint to one of the points I raised concerning the coming elections, illustrates the differences between us. He cites the case of ABA-AKO, a party-list group which John says truly represents marginalized sectors, and which twice missed sending its nominees to the House by a "hair's breadth": John even points out it was offered victory, but for a price; obviously because it didn't secure victory, it declined to pay that price.
Someone from that party-list, recently sent me an email, because their party-list has been identified as a Malacañang-supported party-list by the Black & White Movement (to which I belong). Let me publish, in full, the email sent me by a concerned member of ABA-AKO:
Dear Mr. Quezon, Hello. My name is Tony Montemayor and I am with the ABA-AKO party list. The ABA-AKO is a coalition of farmers, fisherfolk, farm workers, urban poor, and supporters of the traditional Filipino family. It has participated in party list elections since it was first held in 1998. I wanted to get your views on how groups like Kontra-Daya and the Black & White (B&W) movement are apparently making sweeping character judgments simply on the basis of a person's job or friendships and perceived leaning on the impeachment issue. I do so with the full knowledge that you are in favor of GMA's impeachment (with is Kontra-Daya's and B&W's key issue) inasmuch as I believe that you are a fair person. For example, Kontra-Daya and B&W have labeled our party list as "palace fielded" just because our 4rth nominee is Percy Chavez who is currently the chairman of the Presidential Commission on the Urban Poor (PCUP). In addition, B&W apparently takes it against us that our 3rd nominee Manny Arejola is "reportedly an adviser of GMA on population matters and closely associated with POPCOM Commissioner Lito Sandejas". We do believe that this is a very simplistic view. First of all, Percy Chavez is our 4rth nominee because he is the Sec-Gen of the Adhikain at Kilusan ng Ordinaryong Tao (AKO), one of the major partners in this coalition representing the urban poor sector. We do believe that if you check the personal history of Percy and the organizational history of the AKO, you will conclude that both are very credible advocates of their sector. We do believe that this is why he was appointed to the Presidential Commission on the Urban Poor (PCUP) in the first place (way before the 2004 elections). He is on leave from the PCUP for the duration of the campaign period. Similarly, Manny Arejola is our 3rd nominee because he is the representative of the pro-life sector group in our coalition. Again, Manny's track record on pro-life issues is very clear. Manny has also never been a so-called adviser of GMA. And so what if Lito Sandejas is his friend? Lito's track record on pro-life issues is also well-known. Is friendship now a basis for making these kinds of accusations? Why is their immediate conclusion that these two people are running for Congress just to protect GMA against impeachment? Why don’t they respect their lifelong advocacies for their sectors? We respect the fact that for their group, impeachment of GMA is the biggest issue. But while we also consider this as an important matter as well, it is not our key issue. The position of ABA-AKO on impeachment is that we will follow the constitution but will reserve judgment until the process is completed. At the same time, ensure that focus on key sectoral issues is maintained. We are sorry if this is not enough for B&W or Kontra daya but we are a party list and the key issues for our sector are things like agrarian reform, urban land-reform, abortion, etc. Our first 2 nominees are former DA secretary Leonie Montemayor and farmer leader Diocky Granada. Both are officials of the Federation of Free Farmers (FFF) which has been in the peasant and labor sector for over 50 years now. Does this not count for anything as well? Ironically, Leonie was removed from his post in the CIFF Oil Mills by GMA because he supported her impeachment. In closing, we think that it is their right to classify groups according to their key issue of GMA’s impeachment. However, we hope that that they would do so on the basis of "pro," "anti," or "neutral" and not immediately use accusatory terms such as "palace fielded." By all means, expose the supposed fake groups. But there should be much stronger criteria on making these kinds of determinations than just a person’s job or his friendships. Sincerely, Tony Montemayor ABA-AKO Party List
Now John, I don't think, would ever have to deal with such a letter because he wouldn't be inclined to join an organization like Black & White to begin with. Now the organization I belong to has explained clearly enough, why it decided to make certain endorsements and campaign against certain groups; and I reproduce ABA-AKO's letter of protest here, because, indeed, as John points out, as party-list parties go, it has a longer (and more respectable) track record than most; it is definitely not a fly-by-nite party-list, and unlike other party-list groups, it has been transparent about its nominees. The fact that it could invite controversy, is, I think, a sign in its favor: what of the other party-list parties that don't even want to reveal who their nominees to the House would be? The voter, then, at least has both sides: one group says they discourage support for another, based on certain criteria; the other group explains why they disagree with the judgment call made by the group that opposes them. You, the reader, ultimately has to decide: and at the very least, my belonging to one side in the argument shouldn't result in my blocking your access to their views. But still, I have a brief response to make. I think your attitude to the he-said, she-said between the two groups will ultimately boil down to the importance you place on associations candidates, and parties, make, at election-time which is ultimately about deciding to support one side or another. My own approach is simple: when a a person not from the civil service accepts a government appointment, their doing so is an endorsement and acceptance, of everything that administration represents. We can all quibble but it ultimately boils down to whether you're comfortable with endorsing an administration, or stand against it. Critical collaboration, to my mind, is still a decision to collaborate, and thus, accept -which won't be acceptable to others. Anyway, on to John's comments on my comments. 1. John sees civil society playing many roles; I am more interested in what I believe is the evolutionary challenge facing them: that they are poised to replace political parties, but with an accompanying dilemma -they could more ably serve the body politic, because, indeed, they exist for purposes other than winning elections. How to preserve that kind of institutional integrity, is a real problem. But to clarify what I meant by saying this election is a "last hurrah" of sorts, is that those who remain involved, on whatever side, are indeed getting older and I'm not convinced they're being replaced by a younger generation that continues to believe in NGOs playing a reformist role in politics, period. 2. Regarding the middle class: to be sure, the races in Pampanga (particularly Fr. Panlilio's gubernatorial candidacy, and the President's son, Mikey, finding himself opposed) and in Camarines Sur (where the President's other son, Dato, is being opposed by Abang Mabulo) shows some contests where the middle class is mobilizing itself, and where they are doing so in large part, out of the belief that religious principles have to be demonstrated in democratic politics. But I think that's part of the whole Gawad Kalinga-style retreat to the local, in the belief that only in this manner can the national ever be reformed. A retreat, however, is a retreat, strategic or otherwise: it involves abandoning the field, at least for a time. See Measly Meanderings for a description of this approach. But yes, for the record, while there are differences -in approach and interpretation- John and I do agree on a basic thing: abhorrence (a precise and accurate description) for attitudes that drip with disdain for the common voter. By all means, understand the voter, and that there are different kinds of voters; but disdain for the voter implies there is a superior kind of voter -and if you start going down that road, the ultimate assumption tends to be, if you don't see people voting the way you want them to, you might as well dispense with those voters.
