Bulatlatan
Written by: Dorisse Mae
Published: Bulatlatan, February 11, 2010;
Source: Bulatlatan snapshot at the Internet Archive;
Markup: Simoun Magsalin.
Why did the CPP designate a clown to represent its Kabataan Partylist? Ka. Raymond Palatino of this partylist organization published an article defending their opportunistic deal with Manny Villar as an ideologically consistent “revolutionary” tactic. He published his ridiculous article in the CPP influenced bulatlat.com multiply blog site.
Mr. Palatino raised the question, “What revolutionary principles were violated by Ocampo and Maza? What revolutionary goal was abandoned?”
First, it is impossible that Ocampo and Maza made that decision to run for senator under the Villar slate. It was the CPP who made the decision. They are mere implementers of a “grand” plan in the CPP’s parliamentary and electoral struggle arena. So it should be the CPP who should be accused of violating revolutionary principles. And because it is the Sison group handling the political and electoral struggles, the Sison group of the CPP should be accountable for such violation.
Second, Mr. Palatino does not know the specific revolutionary principle violated or maybe he is just feigning ignorance of it. Perhaps Ka Raymond did not seriously study his Basic Primary Course. He has not heard of such serious violations of revolutionary principles such as “Class Collaborationism,” “Right Opportunism,” “Reformism,” etc.
Ka. Raymond aka “Mong” finds nothing wrong in the CPP’s open endorsement of Villar, a clear political agent of the conservative wing of the semi-feudal semi-colonial Philippine ruling class. The CPP is not that naïve to believe that Villar is a “progressive.” They thoroughly know his politics, his class and clan interests, his tie-up with the Marcos martial law party—the KBL. Yet still they openly stated in their Party anniversary statement that Villar is the “most progressive” among the presidentiables, they call on the Filipino masses to support him and to pin false hopes on his demagoguery. The CPP is thus guilty of deceiving the masses.
If Ka. Mong and his revolutionary party take responsibility in leading the masses through this political exercise, they should have made a thorough study of the progressive and non-progressive aspects of the different platforms and character of all the major parties and presidentiables. They should have guided the people in analyzing the pros and cons behind each political platform and candidate and made a Party position based on such objective study. To simply state that Villar “seems to be the most progressive” is a clear act of collaboration with a reactionary faction of the ruling class. The expose’ on Noynoy and Gibo were made from a pro-Villar standpoint and not really from a revolutionary standpoint. In reality, the CPP merely took sides in the factional competition among the ruling class groups.
If Sison were asked privately and off-the-record, why he opted to “support” Villar, he will surely say that Villar has the MONEY, that he is the “most winnable” in terms of party machinery and he has the willingness to tactically collaborate with the Left. So it is not really because of his being the “most progressive,” (unless that is what Sison meant by the word ‘progressive’) because Villar is as reactionary as Gibo and Noynoy and Gordon and Bayani, etc.
Again Ka. Mong twisted certain facts. It is not true that “the Left has refused to endorse Noynoy Aquino.” The CPP had earlier sealed an agreement with Villar even before Cory’s death and received a generous donation for it from the “Pinoy Taipan.” The deal was made in Utrecht in one of Villar’s European trips. When they noticed the huge crowd and the spontaneous support of thousands of people in Cory’s funeral, the CPP partylist politicians took advantage of the free media mileage and came out with sympathetic statements for Cory and waved their partylist flags with the long funeral procession. When Noynoy made a decision to run for presidency, they approached the family through Ballsy Aquino to offer terms of cooperation in the 2010 elections. Now if that is not clear and outright opportunism, what else is?
The Aquino family and the Liberal Party refused the CPP offer. How could the CPP blame them? The CPP’s sealed deal with Villar was widely known among the bourgeois political circles. How could the CPP convince the Noynoy quarters of its sincerity in its cooperation offer, when they were double-dealing with different reactionary parties? Again the CPP and its partylist politicians showed their insidious, manipulative and opportunistic style of politics, ala-traditional politicians or even worse than some of them.
After the Aquino refusal, the CPP accepted a Villar dirty-job project of “Noynoy-bashing.’ BAYAN MUNA and its croaking orchestra of political “frogs in a well” (like ka. Raymond) launched a simultaneous black-propaganda attack on Noynoy regarding his “connection” with the Hacienda Luisita case as an heir of the Cojuangcos. On the other hand, they kept mum on the Villar C5 Scandal, on his KBL connections and loyalty to the Marcoses, on his expensive “low-cost housing projects,” etc. That’s what Mr. Palatino calls as a principled conduct of a “revolutionary”?
Parliamentary struggle is but a means not the goal. Strategically, among the many forms of struggle it ranks secondary in seizing political power. There are certain political bases under a definite historical context that cause revolutionaries to engage in parliamentary struggle.
If bourgeois elections has not yet been completely exposed as a mere competition between reactionaries in getting a bigger share of political power and loot from government coffers; if bourgeois elections still remain as an effective reformist mechanism to keep the masses ever-hoping for change; if the majority of the masses still participate in bourgeois elections, then it is politically relevant for revolutionaries to engage in parliamentary and electoral struggle. However, it should never be used by the Left to ‘partake of the loot’ with the reactionaries, but rather it should be used to expose its own bankruptcy and futility as a means of change and lead the masses to the revolutionary position.
Engaging in parliamentary or electoral struggles should sharpen the people’s political consciousness. It should provide valuable political exposures that will enable the people to take the revolutionary option in the end. To endorse reactionary politicians to the masses definitely opposes this revolutionary objective and cause the masses to hold false hopes in the bourgeois political system.
Not everyone in the national democratic movement are of the same mind as Bayan Muna and Ka. Mong. There are more sincere and consistent revolutionaries persevering in day-to-day mass work, paying attention to the needs of the masses, developing them through political exposures and political education, consolidating their democratic strength in the Organs of Political Power, and preparing them for more challenges in the next stage of the people’s democratic revolution. They are the good revolutionaries, our real heroes! #