it's pretty common to hear criticisms and misconceptions about the prominent party-list groups, especially those of the Leftist orientation. and it's pretty curious that these reveal the extent of slander and disinformation that has been waged against them by their political opponents.
let us try and dissect these misconceptions that have been presented so far.
1.)
marching down the streets as the 'primary option'.
it is the most conspicuous of the many methods that the Left airs out its sentiments, but by far it is not necessarily the primary method. there is the legislative process and the halls of Congress, as well as the judiciary for cases of forced disappearances, activist killings, and others.
really now, why is it that we seldom hear admonishing words when it comes to those lengthy, useless parades, but all ire is vented out when the Left does a demonstration? both causes horrendous traffic, perhaps the latter even less than the former. and while parades celebrate something that is can be said to be meaningless to the common person, demonstrations shout about labor wage increases, prices of commodities and senseless killings?
is it because we are too jaded that we don't want to hear bad news that we know to be true?
2.)
the so-called 'failure of representation'.
it is easy to say that the party-list system is a failure, or that it has not met its intended goals to represent the marginalized sector, as well as fringe political parties. unless of course one asks who else represents the marginalized sectors best.
no other group or agency in the government advocates for and has success in delivering decent living standards that means adequate pay for workers, both government and private. the dismal plans of primary health care leaves everyone asking for more. there is absolutely no plans whatsoever to regulate the rising tuition fee of universities and schools. nothing is done to protect our infant industries from cheap and oftentimes sub-standard goods from China and elsewhere. no equitable and real land reform is taking place for our farmers to industrialize agriculture. we pay exorbitant taxes that goes into debts we were never able to take advantage of. all the while, our country is being plundered by foreign corporations for its minerals, and even by shameless politicians too.
i do not know about you, but that's not the kind of representation one gets from his/ her district congressman.
3.)
the underground connection
the Left has tried many times before to participate in mainstream elections; too bad if your history class does not mention it. since Quezon's time, the Left has tried to capture national seats but has always been thwarted by mainstream politicos who feel that their participation might compromise their power bases in the haciendas, since the Left has always advocated for the break-up of these landholdings.
from political exclusion, marginalization in the Congress, even to outright murder, the Left has stayed underground precisely because no amount of success for free speech and advocacy can ever happen until landlords and big business monopolize political power.
the opening up of the party-list method became and avenue for the Left to express itself through the government's legislative process. it is very much aware that it can have very limited success since the landlords and big business still control the Congress (as seen in the recent issue of the failure to legislate a 120 peso wage hike) , but it deems it sufficient reason that its participation in the legislature will broaden the previously limited audience that it can reach. in this way, the much needed socio-economic reforms can push through with the help of the citizens themselves pressuring the government to give in.
the Left has been split into two main opposing factions with dissimilar analysis to the current situation of the country. there is the national democratic faction and the social democratic faction. both are represented in the House of Representatives.
the current underground formation of the Left, while with a similar ideology with the national democrats, have a different way of attaining their goals.
4.)
'progressive' label, are they really progressive?
to contextualize the usage of the term
'progressive', and the similarities of their politics with those we call 'progressives' in other countries, it is safe to say they indeed are.
now if we concern ourselves with the etymology of the word, which incidentally is 'progress', and to ask if indeed these Leftist formations have added anything resembling 'progress', a better qualifier would be 'were they ever given the chance?'
Re: What can you say about progressive groups like bayan muna,akbayan,and partyl
“What we call chaos is just patterns we haven't recognized. What we call random is just patterns we cant decipher. What we can't understand we call nonsense. What we can't read we call gibberish.” - Chuck Palahniuk
Originally Posted by nkgubalane
Posting Permissions
