updates

emergency GA - hmm, sorry pero mukhang kahit ako eh malabo sa 16... kailangan kasi talagang abangang matapos yung bilangan (eleksyon) dito sa Las Pinas, at ang sabi ng Comelec official eh 5 to 10 days raw. baka ma-alanganin, ayoko namang mambitin ng tao... :(

jerald -

on the paper - ASTIG! SANA MATULOY! :) really looking forward to a wonderful org-to-org experience with Green Minds. :)

on the cleaners - YIHEE!!! ayan, lagi nang malinis ang tambayan, aba dapat lang...

on the committee reshuffle - lahat na ba ng mems ito? :) i think unless may reklamo sila or preferences in terms of committee, okay na ito. :) bring up na lang natin sa June 7 GA. :)

===

irish! ano ba yung PYNOI?! pakipaliwanag nga, na-te-tense ako eh... hehehehe.. :)

===

bumoto po ng tama sa May 10. *bow*

Election-related articles from the People's Media Center

===

Dear friends,

Please find below three election-related stories published by IBON
Features and the People's Media Center: 1) "Election 2004: People's Choice,
People's Voice"; 2) "The Need for New Politics: A People’s Analysis of
the Presidentiable Platforms" and 3)"Philippine Elections: Under the
Watch of Uncle Sam." Please feel free to distribute.

Thanks!

People's Media Center

********************

Election 2004: People’s Choice, People’s Voice?
by Hetty Alcuitas
IBON Features March, 2004

With the presidential elections less than 50 days away, the candidates
in the presidential, senatorial and local elections are in a mad scram
to grab the voters attention through a flurry of paid ads, posters,
media coverage, jingles and other gimmicks.

But many Filipinos are looking beyond the catchiness of the candidates’
jingles, their smiling faces and assurances that they represent the
solution to our problems. Many are still wondering whether the candidates’
promises will actually bring any relief from the ever-burderning weight
of the current economic crisis.

The Philippines has one of the highest voter turnouts worldwide -- the
voter turnout in the 1998 elections was 68.96% according to the
Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral
Assistance. This figure reveals the Filipinos democratic sentiment that there is
value in participating in elections. However, the level of the
electorate’s awareness is still uncertain.

Most candidates have made efforts (however late) to make public their
platforms and programs of governance in an effort to educate the
Philippine electorate by publishing their platforms on their various websites.

The mainstream media has also made efforts through various special
ineserts, TV and radio documentaries, to disseminate information on the
profiles, records and platforms of candidates in order to inform the
electorate. A televised national debate however, remains in limbo since the
candidates cannot agree on the terms and conduct of the debate.

Making platforms

In developing a platform, a presidential candidate must consider many
factors. In an effort to win votes, a candidate seeks to please
different sectors of society with at times conflicting interests. For example,
while some candidates want to reach out to the masa for broad appeal,
they risk upsetting the interests of other sectors such as the business
community and other players in the political field.

A perfect example is the recent call of Raul Roco to cut corporate
income taxes to attract business votes, while at the same time proposing to
trim the budget deficit by imposing a tax on text messages.

Another example is Fernando Poe Jr. call for restructuring of the
sovereign debt within his first 100 days in office. Newspapers reported his
call stirred financial markets and brought on swift reaction from the
central bank who reassured that the Philippines would honor its debts
and that any restructuring had to be first “carefully studied.”
Candidates’ platforms are usually compiled by their team of backers and
experts. During this election period, presidential candidates only
began to release their detailed platforms once into the start of the
official campaign period in February. FPJ’s platform was only released on
Feb. 10. Reports say the candidates’ teams of experts were scrambling to
come up with the finalized platforms. But FPJ’s camp says they took time
to consult with different sectors nationwide.

It is not surprising that the platforms reflect not only the beliefs of
the candidates but of their business, landlord, religious or other
backers’ interests. Yet in an effort to please all sides, platforms offer
concessions in order to please other sectors or are worded in such a way
that they can be open to interpretation in an effort to play safe.

Herein lies the question whether such promises are acutually sound and
practical in application. As experience has proven throughout the
history of Philippine elections, candidates’ promises during election period
are often forgotten once the candidate is elected.

However, it is still imperative for the Filipino people to push their
democratic rights and issues within the electorate system as they assert
their desire for genuine change.

Empty Promises?

In comparing the platforms of the five presidential candidates: Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, Panfilo Lacson, Fernando Poe Jr., Raul Roco and Bro.
Eddie Villanueva, all make promises to improve the access and provision
of basic social services to the majority of Filipinos such as housing,
education and health care. They all promise to increase and prioritize
budget spending in these areas. Some promise affordable housing, free
education and accessible health care.

The candidates also vow to address poverty and increase the number of
jobs by supporting small and medium enterprises. They also promise to
support agriculture and speed up land reform.

These are not new promises. Year after year politicians promise to put
an end to poverty, yet it still remains. Which is why the candidates’
promises to prioritize budget spending on basic needs and social
services remain baseless without addressing the problem of the budget deficit
and foreign debt.

As of September last year, the Philippine’s foreign debt reached P1.5
trillion and by October the budget deficit was P164 billion. [IBON
Birdtalk paper, Yearend briefing, Jan. 12, 2004] According to a Bayan Muna
analysis of the proposed 2004 budget, for the first time since the
mid-80s, social services ranked third, (only after debt service and
defense).

Past presidents promises to balance the budget have yet to be proven in
practice. Meanwhile, the foreign debt continues to balloon.

In relation, candidates must also address concretely the issue of graft
and corruption in the government. Solving corruption means major change
to the whole government bureacracy.

And while candidates may propose to support efforts of SMEs and other
economic iniatives of Filipinos, they must also present clear stands on
the issue of globalization. Candidates who continue to push for
policies of liberalization, deregulation and privatization must also consider
the people’s assessment of globalization. Since the start of the
Philippines membership in GATT-WTO in 1995, peasant and worker orgnizations
say globalization has only led them to more misery and poverty. Even
government officials have called in the past for removal from WTO
membership to more lenient tariff measures.

A candidate’s stand on the issue of globalization may also reflect
their stand on foreign relations and the issue of national sovereignty,
particularly the involvement of the US in the Philippines’ economic,
political, social, cultural and military internal affairs. For example, is
the candidate in favor of continuing US-Philippine military exercises?
What is the candidates stand on the issue of national security and peace
talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the National
Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP)?

The Filipino people should look closely at the candidates’ platforms
and consider how the issues are inter-related. They should also urge for
public debates and push the candidates and eventually whoever becomes
the next president to immediately address urgent people’s issues in a
sincere and genuine way.

*****************************************

The Need for New Politics: A People’s Analysis of the Presidentiable
Platforms
by Hetty Alcuitas
People’s Media Center Reports
Vol. 3, No. 1, April 17, 2004

With less than 30 days away until Filipino voters choose their next
president, many Filipinos are still considering who the wisest choice for
president may be.

While Philippine elections have evolved into a circus of popularity
contests, the majority of Filipinos still hope the election will bring
genuine change to their daily lives. This is why an analysis of the
candidates’ platforms is needed in an effort to focus the debate more on
issues than on pretty faces.

PMC Reports presents an analysis -- from a people’s perspective -- of
the five presidential candidates’ platforms and stands on important
people’s issues.

On Fiscal Policy

All of the presidential candidates call for the need for a balanced
budget. They also propose various measures to increase the tax base by
taxing different consumer products (Arroyo is pushing for a tax on
automobiles and higher taxes on cigarettes and liquor products). They also
propose ways to improve tax collection and discourage tax evasion.
However, these proposals favor rich Filipinos while punishing poorer ones.

All candidates also recognize the need for restructuring of the foreign
debt. FPJ’s call for restructuring does not call for a moratorium on
debt payments, but to stretch the amortization period of debts.
Villanueva says, “many of our foreign loans were shoved down our throats; the
creditor is as much to blame as the debtor, but we will honor our
commitments.” Roco has stated that the government should demand at least one
year of debt relief.

FPJ specifically calls to prioritize budget spending on delivery of
basic social services, while Arroyo’s proposed 2004 budget places social
spending third behind debt servicing and defense. In 2003 almost P6 out
of every P10 that government spent went to interest and principal
payments, leaving almost nothing for social services.

On Graft and Corruption

All candidates call for transparency and promise to implement different
measures to curb and prevent corruption. For example, implementing
computerized and electronic procurement systems and forming an Independent
Commission Against Corruption in the Hong Kong model. Arroyo vows to
continue lifestyle checks and push for reforms in tax administration
while Bro. Eddie suggests preventative measures such as commensurate
salaries and benefits for workers, teachers, judges, military and police to
prevent corruption. He also proposes a massive reeducation program for
government centering on moral values.

However, many candidates themselves have been accused of corruption –
Arroyo (PIATCO, Macapagal Boulevard, Jose Pidal), Lacson (Kuratong
Baleleng case), and Roco (for printing posters during his stint as DepEd
secretary.) Arroyo has also been criticized for her lax treatment of
former President Joseph Estrada who is on trial for plunder. Ten
disqualification cases were also filed against her with COMELEC with accusations
ranging from violations of TV campaign advertising regulations to
diverting government funds to her campaign.

The weakness of most proposals to deal with corruption such as
lifestyle checks etc., are that they target small players and not the top
government officials who are often the most corrupt.

On Globalization

All of the five candidates claim globalization is an inevitable
reality. Yet none of them speaks out strongly against globalization or
membership in the WTO. They instead call for reforms. Arroyo calls for
“liberalized but fair trade,” FPJ to, “re-orient policy on globalization to
expand markets and protect from unfair competition.” Lacson promises to,
“re-think government position and strategy to protect Philippine
interests,” and Roco for, “fair free trade.”

FPJ, Lacson, and Arroyo promise safety nets for agriculture, Roco for
safety nets for displaced workers. All call for adjustments to tariff
rates and subsidies. Yet none point out that there is no such thing as
“fair free trade” since the policies under the WTO often favor dominant
rich nations over poorer ones.

The candidates’ all-out support for globalization contradicts the
negative experience of the majority of Filipinos and the world’s poor who
have been reeling from the impact of liberalization, deregulation and
privatization. They say these policies have only brought more misery and
poverty to farmers, workers and other sectors and have been calling for
a pull out from WTO membership.

On Labor and Employment

While all of the candidates promise to create jobs and support worker
training, none of them call for a rise in the minimum wage. Even
Villanueva, a former trade union organizer claims, “an increase in the minimum
wage is not always beneficial to workers because it triggers increases
in prices of basic goods and service.”

Through her three-year term Arroyo did not listen to workers’ demand
for a P125 across the board nationwide increase in the minimum wage. Yet
she still boasts of granting a 29.2 % Emergency Cost of Living increase
(which amounted to 30 PhP). Workers are again demanding a P60 immediate
wage relief saying current wages can no longer cope with the increase
in the prices of basic commodities.

Arroyo also boasts of creating over three million jobs during her term,
yet most of which were in the agricultural or informal sector and not
permanent or stable. Currently four out of 10 Filipinos are still
considered extremely poor.

None of the candidates sees the need for national industrialization as
the solution to massive unemployment.

On Agriculture

All of the candidates call for modernization of agriculture and for the
speeding up of the implementation of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP). Roco and Villanueva say, “the land should belong to the
tillers” and Roco calls for a study on the effects of CARP.

Arroyo is aggressively pushing for conversion to planting of hybrid
rice and greater access for farmers to credit, such as through the
proposed, “farm as collateral” bill, which was part of her administration’s
priority legislative agenda. Critics however say these programs will hit
hard small farmers.

None of the candidates elaborates on the need for genuine land reform
and a break to the feudal exploitation peasants face under their
landlords.

On Social Services

Education

All candidates promise to improve the quality and access to education.
Villanueva and Roco promise free elementary and secondary education
and, “study now and pay later” programs. FPJ and Lacson promise to
increase the budget for teacher training and development.

Lacson and Arroyo push for the use of English as the medium of
instruction. FPJ promises to promote public-private sector partnership.

Under Roco’s term however, as education secretary, teachers complained
that they did not experience any salary increase, or payment of
benefits such as COLA and loyalty pay.

Under Arroyo, the drastic shortage in teachers and textbooks was not
solved since the budget for education was not given priority. She also
implemented the Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) which critics say
focuses on English as a medium of instruction.

None of the candidates question the colonial nature of the Philippine
education system which does not promote critical thinking or pro-people
values.

Housing

All the candidates promise to support social housing. Lacson says
government social housing should be pursued without expected return. Arroyo
boasts of spending P53.15 billion for housing. Yet reports however say
in 2002 alone 41 urban poor families in Metro Manila were physically
displaced from their homes everyday.

Only Lacson proposes to deal with agriculture issues in rural areas to
address the roots of internal migration.

Health

All candidates promise to expand Phil Health’s coverage. Arroyo and
Villanueva vow to continue the cheap importation of drugs from India. Roco
proposes to support the export of health workers, Villanueva support
urban poor to plant vegetable plots. Lacson wants to promote birth
control and FPJ promises privatization of major government hospitals.

None of the candidates however addresses the dismal state of our health
care system, which is virtually inaccessible to the poor and those in
remote areas due to a lack of funding or priority. They also do not
recognize the need to improve the working conditions and salaries of
medical workers to discourage them from going abroad so that their skills and
knowledge can be used where they are most badly needed, here in the
Philippines.

On Prices of Oil, Water and Electricity

Besides Lacson and Arroyo who co-authored the EPIRA, candidates FPJ and
Villanueva call for a review of Independent Power Producers (IPPs)
contracts with the aim of protecting consumers and bringing down
electricity rates. Yet none of the candidates’ platforms contains concrete action
to reverse the various onerous charges of Meralco, Maynilad and major
oil companies.

Overall, the promises to improve the access and quality of social
services will remain empty unless they are coupled with measures to
dramatically reform budget spending to prioritize social services.

On Charter Change

Arroyo and Lacson openly support the proposal for charter change to a
parliamentary system of government in order for “greater economic
prosperity.” Villanueva says he is supportive of a parliamentary form of
government but calls for public consultation on the issue. FPJ and Roco
also call for public consultation while Roco qualifies that it should not
be an issue decided on during the elections.

None of them condemns the proposal for charter change, which the U.S.
is pushing since it proposes 100% foreign ownership of land and local
industries

On National Security and Peace Issues

All candidates vow to deal with the nation’s peace and order situation
by launching anti-crime and anti-terror initiatives in the country.
Lacson and Arroyo have proven through practice and promise to deal with
these problems with a heavy hand. Both have been pushing the
Anti-Terrorism Bill and for a National Identification System. Indeed, Lacson (who
was head of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission accused of rubbing
out suspected kidnappers in the Kuratong Baleleng case) and Arroyo (whose
record on human rights abuses from 2001 to 2003 numbered 2, 961
according to Karapatan) leave Filipinos wary of what they can expect under
their administration’s rule. Arroyo has also been a vocal supporter of the
U.S. led “war on terrorism.”

Roco is the only candidate vocally against the Anti-Terrorism Bill and
National ID System. He says the bills may lead to more violations of
human rights.

On the issue of peace negotiations with the Moro Islamic Front (MILF)
and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), all
candidates call for a continuation of the formal peace process.

Arroyo, after calling off the talks in 2002 and pushing for a Final
Peace Agreement suddenly resumed interest late last year in pursuing the
peace talks with the NDFP. (This mysteriously coincided with her
announcement that she would run in the 2004 elections.)

Formal talks took place last October and March in Oslo, Norway.
Agreements were reached to release 32 political prisoners and taking measures
to resolve the issue of the U.S., E.U, Australian and Canadian labeling
the CPP-NPA and of NDFP chief political consultant Prof. Jose Maria
Sison as “foreign terrorists.” The CPP and NDFP however questioned
Arroyo’s sincerity in pursuing the peace talks with the recent call of
National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales for the disqualification of
party-lists such as Bayan Muna and the Anakpawis as communist fronts.

Lacson while calling for peace talks says the CPP-NPA leadership should
be isolated from its mass base.

FPJ proposes to accelerate the peace process. He promises to, “reach
out to anti-government armed groups and engage in genuine dialogue to
hear their concerns and issues and come up with mutually acceptable
arrangements for them to return to the fold of the law.” (This essentially
translates into surrender.) He also vows to, “invigorate the country’s
participation in the global campaign versus terrorism,” a statement which
left open-ended could be threatening to democratic rights.

Villanueva, a former Marxist turned born-again Christian says that
credible leadership can resolve insurgency and that one needs to address
and uproot poverty and injustice as a means to peace.

Roco is the only candidate vocally against U.S. intervention in the
Philippines. As a senator Roco was also against US military bases and the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).

He is also the only candidate who condemns the U.S. and other nations’
terrorist tagging of the CPP-NPA.

“It is good for our American friends not to condemn any part of the
political opposition in the country as terrorists,” Roco was quoted by
media outlets as having said at a press conference last February in Iloilo
City.

“The CPP-NPA, in many people's view, does not represent the terrorism
of mindless attacks on innocent people,” Roco said in a statement to the
media.

Conclusion

A closer study of the five presidential candidates’ platforms shows
that they are fundamentally no different from one another. The question
also remains whether the platforms are realistic and come with the
necessary political will and sincerity to become a reality.

Because the candidates are so desperately trying to win “pogi points”
by pleasing all sides, generally they choose to play safe. Thus their
platforms remain ambiguous and lack any significant weight. One can then
expect that once the new president is elected, he or she will still
represent and maintain the interest of the elite over those of the
majority.

One can also conclude from an analysis of the state of the nation under
three years of the Arroyo administration is that she is far from,
“still the last best hope.” Those who are looking for a change may take a
closer look at the progressive aspects of the platforms of Roco,
Villanueva and FPJ.

In the end, the Filipino people may still push for progressive reforms
through the electoral process. Yet they also know that is in only
through their collective action (inside and outside of the electoral
process) that will result in any substantial and genuine change. With Rhea de
los Santos and Joseph Yu, People’s Media Center Reports

Sources:

1. de Castro Jr., Isagani, “Da King’s Campaign Generals,” Newsbreak
magazine, Feb. 16, 2004
2. Booma Cruz , “The Actor is the Message,” Newsbreak magazine, Feb. 2,
2004
3. Website of Bangon Pilipinas political party:
http://www.bangonpilipnas.org
4. Website of Fernando Poe Jr.: http://www.fpj2004.com.ph/
5. Website of Ping Lacson: http://www.pinglacson.ph/
6. Website of Raul Roco: http://www.raulroco.com/
7. Website of the Senate of the Philippines: http://www.senate.gov.ph/
8. Website of Ping Lacson: http://www.888.ph/
9. Rivera, Blanche, “Bro. Eddie: From activist to preacher to
president?,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, Dec. 21, 2003
10. Villanueva, Eduardo, “Responses to questions from PMC,” Feb. 25,
2004
11. Lacson, Ping, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Feb.22,2004
12. Villanueva, Eduardo, Philippine Daily Inquirer
13. Poe, Fernando Jr., Philippine Daily Inquirer
14. Businessworld, March 29, 2004, pg. 2
15. Reuters, AFP and Carina I. Roncesvalles, “Government, communist
rebels agree on release of 32 prisoners,” Businessworld, Monday, April 5,
2004, pg. 12
16. Presidential Management Staff, “Briefing paper for IBON Facts and
Figures,” March 2004
17. “Roco wants CPP-NPA removed from terror list,” INQ.7, Feb. 24, 2004
18. “Notes on the P864.8-billion national budget for 2004,” Compiled by
the office of Bayan Muna Rep. Satur Ocampo, Nov. 21, 2003
19. Remollino, Alexander Martin, “Election 2004: Prospects for the
People,” PMC Reports, December, 2003
20. “Walang Ilusyon sa Eleksyon: Praymer sa Eleksyon ng Mayo 2004,”
Manila: Institute of Political Economy, February 2004
21. INQ.7net election pages

************************************************

Philippine Elections: Under the Watch of Uncle Sam

by Alexander Martin Remollino
People’s Media Center Reports
Vol. 3, No. 2, May 2, 2004

As Filipinos flock to the polls on May 10, not only the nation’s eyes
will be keenly focused on the conduct and outcome of the elections.
International eyes will also be keenly watching the elections, namely a
group of American international observers.

The observers’ presence begs the question of why the U.S. is so
interested in the Philippine elections. While supporters of the observers say
their presence will help prevent cheating, critics such as Anakpawis
party-list national chairman Crispin Beltran denounce the move as a
threat to clean elections and national sovereignty.

A look at the history of Philippine elections proves that despite the
declaration of the Philippines’ independence from the U.S. in 1946, the
Philippines remains a neo-colony of the US. The U.S. uses the elections
as another way to continue to ensure their economic and political
control over the Philippines.

Love letters

In a letter last Jan. 28, Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo wrote to
Commission on Elections (Comelec) chair Benjamin Abalos to propose the
invitation of international observers to the May 10 elections,
supposedly to help “protect and enhance” its credibility.

On Feb. 16 the Comelec chair wrote back: “The presence of international
observers will send a message to the world that democracy in the
Philippines, while relatively young, puts absolutely no one above the sacred
process of election, and that leaders are chosen only by the genuine
will of the people.” The proposal was formally approved by the Comelec
two days later.

Though looking like an initiative of Malacañang, it was — as reported
in the press — actually premised on an offer of the U.S.-based National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) to lead an
international observer team to monitor the coming presidential polls. (It is
unclear, however when exactly the offer was made.)

Secretary Romulo was also quoted in media reports as having said that
the NDI offered to consult other U.S.-based groups such as the
International Republican Institute (IRI) on the possibility of their
participation in a bipartisan and multinational delegation to the Philippines.

An advance team of observers came to Manila in the first week of March
to discuss rules for the deployment of the observer team with Comelec
officials The U.S. Agency for International Development, (USAID) a U.S.
government organization which describes itself as a “humanitarian”
organization working to promote U.S. economic and foreign policy interests,
provided the advance team with initial funding of $75,000. (U.S.)

Malacañang spokesperson Ignacio Bunye had been quoted in the news as
saying that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo shared Romulo’s enthusiasm
in welcoming the foreign observers.

Last April 23 it was reported in the newspapers that the U.S. would be
sending not just 50, but 100 observers to monitor the coming election.
The observer team, the reports said, would be coming over under the
auspices of the USAID in cooperation with the Consortium for Elections and
Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS).

This time Malacañang, through deputy presidential spokesperson Ricardo
Saludo, is trying to take some distance from the foreign poll watchers.

“All the monitoring arrangements need some concurrence from the
(Comelec), which has to clarify whether such an undertaking would compromise
our sovereignty and the independence of the electoral process,” said
Saludo, apparently unaware that the proposal to invite foreign poll
observers had been approved by the Comelec months before.

Crispin Beltran, chair and first nominee of the party-list group
Anakpawis, has criticized the forthcoming presence of U.S. election observers
saying: “The U.S. should not be allowed to interfere in the May
elections. The US. can only be up to no good by sending its observers who are,
no doubt, operatives of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). They
have an ulterior agenda, and no doubt this agenda is in line with the U.S.
efforts to maintain its stranglehold and influence over Philippine
politics and government.”

A closer look at the background of the observer team gives reason to
believe Beltran’s statement.

Observing the observers

The CEPPS is composed of the NDI, the IRI, and the International
Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES).

The NDI, which had offered to lead the international monitoring group,
is not new to Philippine elections.

In 1986, then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan also sent an observer team
(which included the NDI) to monitor the snap presidential elections
called by Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos, who was under intense
public pressure to resign.

Said Reagan in a statement on Jan. 30 that year: “This election is of
great importance to the future of democracy in the Philippines, a major
friend and ally of the United States in the Pacific. It comes at a time
when the Philippines is struggling with the urgent need to reestablish
a political consensus, restructure the economy, and rebuild a sense of
military professionalism.”

Marcos had been forced to call a snap election to prove that his
government still held the interests and mandate of the Filipino people, amid
armed and legal opposition to the martial rule he imposed in 1972.

Marked by fraud and violence, the snap election was widely denounced
and the U.S. observer team joined in condemning the official results.
Public indignation came to a head in the next few weeks, leading to
Marcos’ ouster through a people-power revolt on Feb. 25 and the installation
of his opponent, Corazon Aquino, into the presidency.

Aiding “democracy”

In its website, the NDI is described thus: “The National Democratic
Institute for International Affairs…is a (non-profit) organization working
to strengthen and expand democracy worldwide. Calling on a global
network of volunteer experts, NDI provides practical assistance to civic and
political leaders advancing democratic values, practices and
institutions. NDI works with democrats in every region of the world to build
political and civic organizations, safeguard elections, and to promote
citizen participation, openness and accountability in government.”

The NDI thus appears to be a neutral entity with the sole mission of
fostering democracy throughout the world. But its background reveals much
more than meets the eye.

The NDI, identifying itself with the U.S. Democratic Party, is one of
four organizations affiliated with the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED), an organization funded by the U.S. government ostensibly to
“carry out democracy initiatives” internationally. Other organizations
affiliated with the NED are: the IRI, representing the U.S. Republican
Party; the Center for Private International Enterprise (CPIE, US Chamber of
Commerce), and the Free Trade Union Institute (FTUI, American
Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations).

Beyond “democratic” rhetoric

Created by the U.S. Congress in 1983, the NED promotes the doctrines of
minimal government intervention in the economy or free-market
economics, class “cooperation,” “pluralism,” and opposition to socialism. It
propagates the “virtues” of the American economic and political system
among the influential sectors of its target countries, making sure that
socialist ideas do not gain ground. For its work, the NED receives from
the U.S. government an annual budget of some $33 million, which it
channels to the four foundations affiliated with it and from these to
professional and employers’ associations, universities, media, judiciaries,
churches, and certain “dissident” movements.

Contrary to the democratic facade that is provided by its name, the NED
has been known to support authoritarian governments in the Philippines
and other Asian countries, as well as in South and Central America, and
other regions — while toppling duly elected ones. In 1991, Allen
Weinstein, one of those who drafted the law creating the NED, said: “A lot of
what we do today was done 25 years ago by the CIA (Central Intelligence
Agency).” The NED has worked closely with the CIA in covert operations,
such as the failed CIA-instigated plot against Venezuelan President
Hugo Chavez in April 2002.

The plot against Chavez’s nationalist government in 2002 is reminiscent
of the CIA plot against the left-leaning government of Salvador Allende
in Chile in 1973. Supported by the CIA, the Chilean military staged a
coup against the democratically elected Allende government, resulting in
the Chilean president’s assassination and the installation into power
of the fascist Augusto Pinochet.

The true colors of the NED become more obvious when one takes into
account the fact that among the members of its Board of Directors are Dr.
Francis Fukuyama of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and
Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research (AEI).

The PNAC is an institute openly advocating U.S. global leadership. In
its Statement of Principles, signed June 3, 1997 by Fukuyama and others,
the PNAC declares thus: “We need to accept responsibility for America’s
unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly
to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” It also speaks of
the need “to challenge regimes hostile to our (U.S.) interests and
values.” The PNAC promotes the Reaganite doctrine of active intervention in
other countries.

The AEI describes itself as a “think tank” devoted to “preserving and
strengthening” what it calls the “foundations of freedom” — limited
government, private enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions,
and a strong foreign policy and national defense — through scholarly
research, open debate, and publications.

The “scholars” associated with the PNAC and the AEI, such as Fukuyama
and Novak, are among the most vocal defenders of U.S. Pres. George W.
Bush’s global interventionist policies.

Marcos and U.S. observers

The U.S. has always paid lip service to democracy, but it has never
balked at supporting anti-democratic regimes that are friendly to its
economic and foreign policy interests, while at the same time working
against democratic governments that assert national sovereignty. As former
U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said of a certain Latin
American dictator, “He may be a son of a bitch, as long as he is our son
of a bitch.”

In the Philippine context, the U.S. has always maintained a policy of
supporting dictators that are friendly to its economic and foreign
policy interests. The U.S. still supported the Marcos administration at the
height of martial law, when state forces violated civil liberties and
other human rights with the highest impunity.

Marcos was the fair-haired boy of the U.S. while he was an able
protector of U.S. interests in controlling the economy of the Philippines and
influencing its politics and military.

In a number of media interviews, Bayan Muna Rep. Satur Ocampo has said
that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is represented by the CPIE in
the NED, was one of the first entities to congratulate Marcos upon the
declaration of martial law. In 1973 George Bush, father of the present
U.S. president and then U.S. vice president, said to Marcos: “We love
your adherence to democracy.”

The servility of the Marcos regime to U.S. interests generated a social
crisis which fanned the flames of dissent. To avert the revolutionary
tide, Marcos imposed martial law in 1972. Armed and, later, legal
opposition to authoritarian rule forced Marcos to make a pro-forma lifting of
martial law in 1981. But U.S. support for his government continued up
to the last days of February 1986, when the broad resistance to his
continued leadership had come to a head and already constituted a
considerable danger to the U.S. interests he was serving.

Crucial points

It is within this framework that the NDI offer to lead a team of
observers to monitor the May 10 presidential elections must be viewed. For
all its pretensions to safeguarding democracy, the observer team which
will monitor the May 10 elections will be doing so with the objective of
protecting the US. agenda of continuing its domination of the
Philippine economy, politics and military; and ensuring that whoever will next
sit in Malacañang will be a loyal accomplice in its quest for global
“leadership.” That is clear from the NDI’s affiliations.

It is only now, since 1986, that the U.S. is once again sending a
monitoring group to take watch over the Philippine electoral process. There
are similarities between 1986 and 2004; at no other points in
contemporary Philippine history have there been surrogate regimes so loyal to
the U.S. and at the same time so alienated from the people.

Like the Marcos regime, the Arroyo government is distinguished for
unleashing a crisis upon the Filipino people with its degree of servility
to the U.S. agenda.

Under the aegis of U.S.-imposed pro-globalization policies, the Arroyo
government has been wiping away all regulation of foreign investment,
at the expense of the people’s livelihood and the country’s environment.
Because of this, local enterprises have been closing down at alarming
rates due to unfair competition, exacerbating the unemployment problem.
The “right” of profit repatriation that foreign investors, without
obligation to transfer technology, have been enjoying at levels previously
unimaginable is worsening the decapitalization of the Philippine
economy and swelling the foreign debt.

Meanwhile its support to the U.S. interventionist agenda, which it has
been giving without being asked, is risking the lives of Filipinos
overseas. Filipino workers abroad have been subjected to hate attacks in
countries opposing the U.S. wars of aggression, as they are perceived to
be also supportive of it like their government.

All these have unleashed a wave of public outrage against the Arroyo
administration — an outrage that has expressed itself in numerous mass
protests

The NDI-led observer team may well be expected to lend legitimacy to
the May elections, by pronouncing its results as “credible” when the
circumstances favor U.S. interests. Right now the U.S. is still seen as
supportive of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo whose recent actions, such
as the sacking of a Comelec public information officer who pointed out
her violations of election laws in the conduct of her campaign, are
seen as indicative of a pattern of fraud. It was no less than Bush who
last year encouraged Arroyo to run in the May elections, some five months
after public discontent forced her to appease the people by declaring
she would not run.

On the other hand, the U.S. Congress and State Department have recently
come out with statements criticizing the Arroyo government for
incompetence in the face of corruption and terrorism. This developed just as
anti-Arroyo forces from both the Left and the mainstream opposition have
been gravitating toward a broad front against her.

Rewind

U.S. interference in Philippine elections is not new. In fact, the
entire Philippine electoral system traces its roots to the U.S. occupation.

The U.S. occupation of the Philippines was part of a larger drive for
additional markets for the products of American factories.

In the latter part of the 19th century, the U.S. economy experienced a
rapid industrial growth, characterized by an increase in manufactured
goods which outran the demand for these. In the words of Sen. John F.
Miller: “The time has now come…when new markets are necessary...in order
to keep our factories running.”

The expansion campaign was one that took the U.S. to the Philippines,
Puerto Rico, and Cuba. U.S. forces took part in the Philippine war
against Spanish colonialism in 1898, supposedly to help free the Filipinos,
only to set up an occupation government in 1901.

The U.S. occupation of the Philippines, although clearly in the
furtherance of American corporate interests, was justified with the guise of
“tutelage in the democratic way of life.” In line with this, the U.S.
established an electoral system in the Philippines.

The first Philippine elections were held in 1907. In these elections to
the National Assembly, only propertied men 21 years old and above, and
able to write or speak Spanish or English, were eligible to vote and
qualified to run. The U.S. tapped the local elite for “national”
leadership as historically, moneyed classes in colonized countries have tended
to collaborate with occupying powers in order to retain their positions
of social privilege.

The next decades would see the further entrenchment of a Philippine
elite leadership serving as the local appendage of U.S. imperialism.

Direct U.S. occupation of the Philippines continued until 1946, when
independence was “granted” after decades of determined struggle by the
Filipino people, but the Philippines continues to be bound by economic
and military “agreements” which shape Philippine policies to ensure that
these will be favorable to the U.S. agenda.

In the post-“independence” setting, the U.S. has interfered in the
electoral process whenever personalities or parties it considered threats
to its interests surfaced.

In 1946 the U.S. supported moves to unseat from Congress six elected
members of the Democratic Alliance (DA), a broad formation of leftist
elements and progressive liberals united on the program of assertion of
sovereignty and advancement of nationalist industrialization. Staunch
opponents of the Bell Trade Act which granted U.S. corporations equal
“rights” with Filipino businessmen in exploiting the country’s economic
resources, the DA’s representatives constituted a block to a two-thirds
vote on the said bill. President Manuel Roxas and his political allies,
with the aid of the U.S., filed ouster cases against the DA
representatives on spurious grounds of electoral “terrorism.” They succeeded in
unseating them and the Bell Trade Act was able to pass in Congress.

The late 1940s and early 1950s saw the emergence of Claro M. Recto, a
brilliant statesman who advocated nationalist industrialization and an
independent foreign policy. As a senator in 1953-57, he came into
frequent clashes with President Ramon Magsaysay, a staunch U.S. ally. When
Recto competed against Magsaysay in the 1957 presidential elections, the
CIA orchestrated a sophisticated smear campaign against him and his
running mate Lorenzo Tañada. At the same time it built up the candidacy of
Magsaysay, organizing and funding the National Movement for Free
Elections which served the dual purpose of a pro-Magsaysay propaganda arm and
election “monitor.”

It worked; Recto and Tañada were badly defeated.

Carlos P. Garcia emerged from that election as the new president —
Magsaysay having perished in a plane crash while on the campaign trail.
Though far more moderate than Recto, he adopted certain parts of the
latter’s economic program, embarking on a Filipino First Policy. For this,
the Garcia administration suffered from continuous U.S. harassment and
almost met its end through CIA-supported coup attempts.

No illusions

The Philippine electoral system creates an illusion of empowerment
among the Filipino people. It is always projected as a “civilized” way of
effecting change in the country’s conditions.

But throughout the Philippines’ history, the Filipino people’s will has
always ended up in the dustbin of the electoral process. Philippine
elections have always served to lend a semblance of legitimacy to the
leadership of politicians from classes with a historical record of
willingness to sacrifice the national welfare for the sake of U.S. economic and
foreign policy interests. The emergence of leaders constituting a
counter-current to the status quo has invariably been met with maneuvers by
the U.S. and its local henchmen.

The coming presidential elections should not be expected to be any
different. As it has always been, the U.S. bet is a sure winner and he or
she who dares to go against the flow from within the existing framework
may very well expect to be harassed in various ways. The U.S. is the
real decision-maker in the present Philippine electoral process; no one
has been able to ascend to Malacañang, and stay there, without its
blessings.

There should thus be no illusion on the part of the electorate that by
depending entirely on the present electoral process, the people can
catapult into power a leadership decidedly committed to the national
interest. Such a leadership can only come to power through the concerted
action of the Filipino people to break the chains of Philippine bondage to
the U.S. economic and foreign policy agenda. People’s Media Center
Reports


Sources:


1. Barbara Mae Dacanay with Estrella Torres, “Commission on Elections
Agrees with Arroyo Plan to Invite International Observers,” Gulf News,
Feb. 22, 2004

2. Jerome Aning with Inquirer wires, “U.S. to Field 50 Observers to
Monitor May Elections,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, Feb. 26, 2004

3. Concepcion Paez, “Guess Who’s Coming to Our Elections?” Newsbreak,
March 29, 2004

4. Maila Ager, “2 Foreign Groups Sign Up to Monitor May 10 Election,”
Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 23, 2004

5. “Anakpawis Presses Arroyo to Prohibit the Entry and Interference of
U.S. Intelligence Experts in the May 10 Polls,” Anakpawis News Release,
April 24, 2004

6. Gil C. Cabacungan Jr., “U.S. Sending 100 Observers to Monitor RP
Polls,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 26, 2004

7. United States Agency for International Development,
http://www.usaid.gov/

8. National Democratic Institute for International Affairs,
http://www.ndi.org/

9. National Endowment for Democracy, http://www.ned.org/

10. Roland G. Simbulan, The Bases of Our Insecurity, Second Edition,
Quezon City: BALAI Fellowship, Inc., 1985

11. Bobby Tuazon, Edberto Villegas, Jose Enrique Africa, Paul Quintos,
Ramon Guillermo, Jayson Lamchek, and Edwin Licaros, Unmasking the War
on Terror: U.S. Imperialist Hegemony and Crisis, Quezon City: Center for
Anti-Imperialist Studies, 2002

12. Project for the New American Century, http://www.pnac.org/

13. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,
http://www.aei.org/

14. Renato Constantino, The Philippines: A Past Revisited, Manila: Tala
Publishing Corporation, 1975

15. Renato Constantino and Letizia R. Constantino, The Philippines: The
Continuing Past, Manila: Foundation for Nationalist Studies, 1978

16. R.E. Felicia, Walang Ilusyon sa Eleksyon: Praymer sa Eleksyon ng
Mayo 2004, Manila: Institute of Political Economy, February 2004



--
People's Media Center
"Promoting a people-oriented journalism"
3/F SCC Bldg, 4427 Int. Old Sta. Mesa,
Manila, Philippines
tel/fax: (632)714-1580
e-mail: pmc@philippineissues.org
website: http://www.philippineissues.org

emergency GA

okay lang ba na mag-emergency GA tayo ng may 16, Sunday, regarding yung minutes ng student council meeting na inattendan ni Irish?

please post sa egroup or text me your replies to this proposal. thanks.

jerry - patext brig naman jan regarding this.

Proposed date of GA: Sunday, May 16, 2004
Time: Lunch meet (1130)
Place: McDo Philcoa na lang. :)

salamat po.

***

ate wilan - invite ko po kayo sa egroup. :)

uy astig alumni post!

yaaay! :) welcome ate nich sa blog! :) yung ibang alumni na tinanggap na yung invite for the blog, sana mag-post na rin :)

naiintriga po kami sa Tawag Ka Gang. hehehe. :)

ako na po ata ang pinakagaga dito sa org. yang mga bata, mababait yang mga yan :) di umiinom, di nagyoyosi, mababait talaga :) kailangan pang demonyohin, hehehhe.

joke lang. (yung part na kailangang demonyohin... ahihi)

post naman ng mga mahahabang bangag na kwento jan... ;)

Wow ganito pala pag blog!

Ang masasabi ko lang ay ang ujp lang po ang kaisa-isang org na nagpa-iyak sa kin!!! Huhuhu! Eh kasi naman ito yung unang org na in-applyan ko. At first interview pa yun nung umiyak ako. Pero nung 2nd interview and induction di na ko umiyak! :) Anyways, it was all worth it naman kasi ok naman tong org na to. (Kahit lagi akong absent sa GA. Haha!) Best of luck sa mga activities nyo! Mukha namang masisipag kayo eh.

Yun lang po.

-- nic",)h --

upload update: ujp propaganda

click here.

also updated that page. *grin* yay. does this make me a good webmistress? *wink*

anyway - welcome po sa mga alumni na kasali na dito sa blog! :D post naman kayo! :D

updates

na-invite ko na po sa blog sina ate nichelle at ate edith. :) invite ko rin po sa egroup sina ate gladyz at kuya charlie. :)

email niyo po kami for ujp info you can share (ujp stories, corrections, contacts, etc):

kate - thegshift@yahoo.com
jerald (memcomm) - jerald_gwapo@yahoo.com
emman (secretariat, re-electionist, hehe) - francoemmanvoncena@yahoo.com

yun lang po. :)