The politics of reform 2

There is a thread running through my mind during the many activities I have been engaged in since Friday till today – the need to craft a strategy for reform.

In the left, or broader progressive tradition, with which I identify myself, the energies we have invested in crafting a political strategy for change are focused on revolution or radical change. This made perfect sense during the years of repression, when there was little space and possibilities for reform.

But even after EDSA 1986, there has been little effort or even interest in developing a strategy for reform. In fact reform is often equated with “reformism,” or the mistaken pursuit of reforms even when reforms are impossible.

In the absence of a strategy for reform, the struggles and engagements on issues are sporadic, without benefiting from a cumulative learning from experiences. This leads to an impatient and unrealistic expectation for every struggle to succeed, and a tendency to swing from too much optimism to cynicism.

I felt the need for such a strategic reform framework during the discussions at the Forum on Consumer Rights of electric coop members in Naga City last Friday and Saturday. I could sympathize with the impassioned businessman who asked, “Why should we take up the challenge of organizing ourselves and getting involved in improving our coop? Is there any guarantee that NEA – the National Electrification Administration, will do its part?”

Yesterday, at the Power Summit convened by FDC – the Freedom from Debt Coalition, there were very informed debates about EPIRA, its flaws and limitations. Someone observed afterwards: “Why should we respond to the challenge for us to propose amendments and improvements to EPIRA, since we opposed it to begin with?”

And today, at the Forum on Mining sponsored by FPE – the Foundation for Philippine Environment, both anti-mining and pro-mining advocates agreed on at least one thing – that the institutions needed to insure “responsible mining” are weak or outrightly bad.

If so, what changes can we realistically hope for, and work for? And how?

Fortunately, the legacy of “people power” is still alive. After all, it has its roots not just in EDSA 1986, but much earlier in the resistance movement against the dictatorship. It has many names – people’s participation, citizens’ advocacy, pressure politics etc.

What is common to all is a belief in the need and possibility for concerted action even by those who are outside the institutions of power, who want to have an impact on the power holders.

But 21 years after EDSA 1986, there is also a deepening sense of frustration at the limited gains achieved through these various forms of “people power.” There is sober realization that by itself, people power outside the institutions will achieve little if it does not have its allies and kindred spirits among those holding positions of power inside the institutions.

What are the reasons then, for people power to keep hoping and struggling for reforms?

There are no easy answers.

I read somewhere that the way of Asian gurus is not to give direct instructions, but to tell stories that may offer useful insight. I am no guru, but during the forums, I found myself telling stories that may have some bearing on the politics of reform.

When I was in prison, we used to send greeting cards to our friends, especially at Christmas. One of our favorite messages was this: “Ask not who are inside prison and who are outside prison. Do not even ask why we are inside or why you are outside. Rather ask, what are we doing inside and what are you doing outside? For there are those of us inside prison who continue to think freely and remain committed to freedom; there are those outside who do not need to be imprisoned since they are already imprisoned by selfishness and fear.”

We ended our message with a challenge: “Ask how our struggles inside prison and your struggles outside prison can connect, and hasten the coming of our longed-for freedom.”

After my release from prison, I was invited to conferences abroad, and I adjusted the message to overseas Filipino communities: “Ask not who are inside the Philippines and who are outside the Philippines. After all, there are those inside our country who do not care much about our country, and there are those outside our country who continue to do what they can for our country. Ask then, how those of us inside the country and those outside the country can work together to help the Philippines.”

And when I accepted a government post in TESDA, I found the message relevant in addressing my activist friends who were not fully comfortable with my serving in government: “Ask not who are inside government and who are outside government. Rather ask what are we doing inside government and outside government, and how we can combine our efforts to bring about changes that will benefit our people.”

Reformers are usually a minority, especially inside institutions of power. They will not make much headway unless they have a reform constituency whose clamor and actions for reforms can combine with their efforts within.

On the other hand reformers outside the institutions, even if more numerous, are still minorities. They are bound to be frustrated in their efforts to influence the institutions from the outside unless they can link with reform-minded officials inside the institutions.

This synergy, and even partnership, for reforms is understood and experienced by many who are engaged in participatory local governance.

Because of fewer positive experiences, there is greater skepticism about such synergies for reform with national government agencies and with large corporations.

In any case, this biblical passage is instructive to those who would pursue effectively the politics of reform: “Be simple as doves, but clever as serpents.”

Explore posts in the same categories: Power and energy, Renewing our spirit