~All About Activism, Aktibista in the Philippines~

[josephdc]

---

IPD Activist School Launched
Institute for Popular Democracy
November 30, 2004


IPD, through its Outreach and Communications training program and the vital assistance of the NGO Popular Education for People's Empowerment (PEPE), formally opened the 'Activist school' (AS) last October 22, 2004 in a successful launch held in Fersal Hotel in Quezon City. The AS is an informal education program that aims to facilitate critical analyses on the Left's sectoral and social movements through the process of discourse among activists from across generations gathered together to listen, share and discuss.

A concept that has been envisioned by IPD and the popular democrats movement years ago, the AS challenges Left activists to rethink the very foundations and assumptions that define and permeate their strategies and interventions for development and democracy. It hopes to mediate a process that hopes to contribute to the redefinitions on “what is being Left” in the Philippines. The AS sees this rethinking as crucial in light of the key roles of the Left in transforming the power relations in the country on behalf of the marginalized people.

The AS consists of a series of thematic discussion sessions lasting three months. So far four sessions were already conducted since the launch. These include the first session which introduces the AS to its 'students' and its role in reforming the Left as well as its aim to facilitate a process of debates, advocacy and rethinking among post-Edsa activists in dialogue with pre-Martial Law and Martial Law activists.

This was followed by a session on sectoral movements, which reflects on the historic contributions of Left's sectoral movements in the Philippines and interrogates them in the current social realities and issues. Peasant and Agrarian reform issues as well as labor and unionism issues were discussed here.

The third session is about social movement – an 'investigation' of key social movements and how they are interwoven in the people’s (or activists’) collective actions at the local and national levels and how the Left grapples with these movements that are not traditionally defined by the structural analysis. These include discussions on women's, environmental and other social movements in the country.

Emerging activism was the fourth session. Discussions looked into the brand of activism that is not traditionally influenced by the Left ideologies that also ascribes its commitments for the interest of the poor Filipinos. Media, religious groups and the so-called EDSA 3 forces were central in the deliberations.

Three more sessions will complete the first AS program. These include thematic discussions on globalization and international issues, state and political reform, and finally the question: What is being left of the Left? The AS is expected to wrap up on January 2005.

Wouldn't it be great if we can have a school that offers a course on "How To Be An Activist", or "How To Be A Responsible Individual/ Citizen" or "How To Save The World", etc., that combines the fields of philosophy, sociology, political science, history and other relevant and important disciplines to teach students exactly how to become a responsible individual or citizen; to help people understand the world and the society they live in and impart to them knowledge and skills to help them intervene in order to effect positive changes in society? I always believe that a university's ideal should be to form individuals capable of understanding and changing their society, and not merely to produce people who can easily adjust to the status quo. Wouldn't it be great if we have that here in Cebu?

[marquee]

ditto!

[louie007]

being an activist is not being taught.. it's a state of mind.

[Archie]

yeah right! ^

[gareb]

hahay. ming extra na sad ang mga pop dems.

this is a nice development, but kulang pa gihapon. i have doubts on how critical 'critical analysis' could be, and of course, who says what is critical and what is not.

phew. im sorry but sometimes, pop dems give me the headache

[josephdc]

What about the "pop dems"?

[gareb]

pop dems = popular democrats. they are so much like social democrats(soc dems) anyway. i personally have not seen any differences.

their analysis of the philippine society is based on the premise that we can work things out through traditional legal electoral channels. they accept the idea that a power elite holds the political as well as economic 'destiny' of the country, but they flip-flop on its influence over people's dispositions and attitude. their basic premise is that the majority of the population can be trusted to elect people that would represent their interests provided that the power elite is somehow subdued. they also believe that if given a voice, the vast powerless majority can win over the power elite through the traditional power politics of our day.

seems nice, isn't it?

except for one simple and major flaw. the majority of the populace is already beholden to the culture of the power elite; patterning, if not being inspired, with them. the power elite holds political, economic, as well as cultural power over the majority of the populace. this is called the false consciousness effect. in essence, a major cultural and ideological overhaul is needed to counter this. the bulk of this theory came from Antonio Gramsci. the soc dems reject this idea.

besides that, there is also the fact that the power elite will not easily give up its position for the sake of the majority. it will do any means necessary (even using the soc dem political line) to create schisms within those that try to dis-empower them, by underlining and emphasizing legal struggle (which of course they have full control) over all other means, hence perpetuating themselves in power.

this is why, as you noticed, the term 'critical analysis' on the mainstream Left (national democrats) line, is given emphasis. as you can see, the Left is fragmented as it is, each with its own analysis of this country's situation.

hope this helps.

[jay_007]

activist? in school? not new!!! naa gani sa bukid, school pa kaha! bwehehehe

[josephdc]

The Wikipedia link is awesome! A very good resource. Thanks for pointing that out. Very informative indeed. I've heard of Wikipedia before but I never bothered to check out the site.

I didn't quite get what you mean.

When you say a "major cultural and ideological overhaul" do you mean "radical and sudden, or abrupt, change"? If so, I think you'd be right. I think the social democrats believe that there's a need to change our culture, as it works to the advantage of the powerful. But they differ, for example with the communists, in that they want to effect that change gradually, through popular education, or by empowering the people, especially the marginalized sectors of society. I think that's what Popular Education for People Empowerment (PEPE), for example, is doing. But I think they're "pop dems".

Is Bayan communist in orientation?

What's your political orientation?

[gareb]

josephdc:

ur welcome. as always.

by saying we need a "major cultural and ideological overhaul" i mean a change of perspective. the term 'radical' as u know is a relative term. conservatives call liberals that, while liberals use the label on extremists.

anyway, as i was saying, we need a change of perspective, a change in conciousness. if false consciousness effect reveals how the common powerless populace adopts the cultural interest and the world outlook of the power elite, then we need to change that and encourage the emergence of a new culture that upholds the interest of the majority.

we also have to realize that there is a dialectical relationship between economics and culture. as illustrated by common knowledge, he who holds economic power holds everything. in essence, for us to overcome the cultural domination by the power elite, economic power must be given to the vast majority. only can both economic disparity and false consciousness can be annihilated.

again, the social democrats are hesistant to accept this fact. they have this tendency to segregate cultural issues from economic issues, disregarding the dialectical relationship between both. soc dem's segregationist tendencies highlight Max Weber's idealism on the development of culture and social mindset.

the above picture will (of course) will sound 'radical' to conservatives who are comfortable with the status quo (and do not want to change it perhaps because they are benefiting from it) and a large chunk of the majority of the populace due to false consciousness effect.

regarding the 'sudden and abrupt change' versus 'gradual transformation' dilemma, because of the interplay between economics and culture, and because cultural issues of 'changing perspectives and consciousness' cannot be separated from the more concrete issues of economics and political power, the solution should take into consideration these aspects.

'sudden and abrupt change' will (of course) apply to economics, handing over the economic power to the majority and/or suppressing the power of the elite. cultural mindset and attitude, needs a 'gradual transformation' as the conditions for it to actually succeed in its most widespread form is already rooted in place (economic control).

no. Bayan Muna is not a communist political party, nor does it have a communist political line. the fact that it participates in the legal parliamentary 'battle' suggests that it is not. being 'left of center' it does its share of socio-economic reforms that it can within the framework of the current political system. but it can only do so little granted the fact that the political system of the country is dominated by the power elite.

my political orientation? i am a national democrat. basically it is what i have presented above (plus more).