💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › bas-umali-archipelagic-confederation.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:16:20. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Archipelagic Confederation Author: Bas Umali Date: April 26, 2006 Language: en Topics: Philippines, democratic confederalism, communalism Source: Retrieved on Aug 27, 2019 from http://www.anarkismo.net/article/2923 Notes: Another version of this pamphlet was also published as a pamphlet by Red Lion Press in 2007 entitled The Re-Emergence of Philippine Anarchism: Archipelagic Confederation, An Alternative Political Structure Beyond Representation and State Politics; Advancing Genuine Citizen’s Politics Through Free Assemblies and Independent Structures from the Barangay and Community.
Many of us will agree that in our context, democracy seems elusive.
Until now, a vast number of people are in extreme poverty, deprived of
basic needs and are politically marginalized. We know that poverty is
caused by the uneven distribution of power where only a few can decide
over critical things such as the use of natural resources and
distribution of its benefits. Who among us was ever asked or consulted
by the government in its program of environmental destruction which is
only profited big corporations which are controlled by a few families
and foreign corporations? Did the government bother to ask peasants,
farmers, fishers, workers, women, youth, gays, consumers and other
sectors with regard to the country’s accession to the WTO and its
conclusion of various bilateral agreements? Who wants E-VAT and debt
payment?
The list is overwhelmingly long, proving that the democracy we have
today is a farce.
The heart of the struggle of all the revolutionary efforts in our
history is about making people participate in power. Part of the
movement’s usual rhetoric is people’s participation in decision-making
because without people’s participation to the political exercises that
directly influence every dimension of their lives, democracy will not be
realized.
This document will attempt to discuss an alternative anarchist political
structure that will promote people’s direct participation in power and,
in broad strokes, discuss the flow of political power from the bottom to
the top. It is a concept that is heavily derived from the idea of
Confederation advanced by libertarian author Murray Bookchin. His ideas
of course are not detached from traditional anarchist movements and
contemporary anarchist activists; and we believe it is significantly
relevant to our current political crisis.
Confederation offers an alternative political structure based on a
libertarian framework—i.e., non-hierarchical and non-statist, which is
doable and applicable. It is doable compared to the 35-year old struggle
of the CPP-NPA-NDF which, after taking tens of thousands of lives,
delivered no concrete economic and political output to the Filipino
people. More so, the alternatives being offered by mainstream leftist
groups outside NDF offer no substantial difference, for they all adhere
to the state and of capturing political power—an objective cannot be
realised in the near future.
In the light that anarchism is exaggeratedly misunderstood, let us first
discuss some fundamental principles of stateless-socialism;
libertarianism and anarchism.
“Purely utopian!” That’s one of the common reactions of those who do not
understand the word anarchy and its alternatives. Another misconception
is its affinity to chaos.
These nuisances and misinterpretations are not surprising at all.
Historically, anarchism has long opposed oppressive systems and fought
monarchy, oligarchy, and the totalitarianism of the state-socialists and
authoritarian communists alike. It continuous to carry out the struggle
to fight new forms of colonialism, capitalism and other exploitative
systems that hamper the development of the humanity. Every ruling regime
has its share in imputing fear and terror on the anarchist movement in
order to discredit it.
It is improper to escape the fact that violence is part of the anarchist
movement. Along with the nationalists and republicans, anarchists
carried out terroristic methods to advance social revolution. The
“Propaganda by the Deed” was meant to encourage people to act against
the state and the old order by launching violent activities such as the
killing of French president Sadi Carnot by Sante Jeronimo Caserio (an
Italian anarchist) in 1894. Italian anarchist Michele Angiolillo also
shot Canovas of Spain in 1987. Luigi Luccheni (another anarchist from
Italy) stabbed Empress Elisabeth of Austria to death in 1898, while
Polish anarchist Leon Czogolsz killed US president McKinley in 1901.
There were also two attempts on the life of Kaiser Wilhelm I, the first
by Max Hodel on 11 May 1878, then followed by Karl Nobiling on the June
2 of the same year.
And the list is long.
These of course were used by the dominant regimes to their own
advantage. In order to demonize anarchism, they shrewdly tailored it to
violence and chaos. And this was even reinforced by the state socialists
and authoritarian communists when the anarchist movement in Ukraine
challenged the Bolshevik regime, the White Army and other foreign
invaders.
Nuisances and misinterpretations are bound to occur in situation wherein
power is asymmetrically distributed. The political structure that is
controlled by the economic and political elite would not allow anarchism
to flourish. Moreover, the country’s revolutionary tradition is highly
influenced by red bureaucracy which is historically hostile to
anarchism.
Contrary to common misconceptions, anarchism is a theory that firmly
upholds the idea of an organized world that is free for all. As Noam
Chomsky once stated in an interview, anarchy is a society that is highly
organized wherein many different structures are integrated such as the
workplace, the community and other myriad forms of free and voluntary
associations, with participants directly managing their own affairs.
Unlike the existing order where people are motivated by power, profit,
private property, and individualism; anarchy on the other hand is a
society that fosters mutual cooperation, solidarity and freedom from
exploitation and oppression and where decisions are made by those who
are directly concerned. Any form of political structure that centralizes
power is totally unacceptable.
The word archipelago on the other hand recognize the geographical
characteristics of the country and the very essential role of its rich
natural resources that strongly influence lifestyle of its inhabitants.
Myriad historical accounts indicate that the bodies of water surrounding
the different islands actually connected rather than separated them from
each other, and that economic, social and political activities of the
inhabitants were developed due to the interconnectedness of their
immediate environment.
It is also important to note that the rich natural endowments of the
archipelago allow diverse cultures to flourish and develop into a
heterogeneous way of life that are interlinked through mutual
cooperation.
The famous victory of Lapu-lapu against Magellan is one of the earliest
symbols of resistance in the archipelago. A considerable number of his
men defeated the well-armed and battle-hardened Spanish conquistadores
in a low-tide battle in the shore of Mactan. One can espouse the idea of
an on-going rivalry between Lapu-lapu and Rajah Humabon which Magellan
used—winning the trust of the latter and he attacked the former and met
his death. But one can also elaborate the idea that Lapu-lapu’s group
was set to defend the autonomy of their community.
Prior to the nationalist struggle, “Moro Wars” took place from 1565 to
1898 that prevented the Spaniards from subjugating the inhabitants of
the southern part of archipelago. Colonizers mobilized Christianized
locals to fight Muslims, thus laying the foundation of “perpetual”
Christian-Muslim conflict in Mindanao.
The Philippines was one of the first Asian countries to stage a
revolution against the colonialism of the West. The early phase of the
Filipino struggle was initially carried out by local privileged
intellectuals in the likes of Jose Rizal and Marcelo Del Pilar. The
revolution was nationalistic in character, which is understandable
because that time, nationalism was in the height of propagation in many
parts of the world, specifically in Europe. This profoundly influenced
Rizal’s works and inspired the oppressed masses, culminating in armed
resistance organized by Andres Bonifacio in 1896.
With the growing influence of the US combined with the simultaneous
armed resistance in Cuba, the Filipino nationalist resistance was able
to substantially reduce the influence of Catholic Order, and finally
drove out colonial Spain. But American expansionist policy immediately
took effect, as expressed through the Treaty of Paris of 1898.
Shortly after the inauguration of the First Philippine Republic in
January 1899 the Filipino-American War broke-out which claimed 600,000
Filipino lives, mostly due to starvation and diseases.
The revolutionary tradition in the country was further enriched upon the
arrival of Isabelo De Los Reyes in Manila in 1901 from his exile in
Barcelona, Spain where he brought a collection of books including, those
written by Malatesta, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Marx, Darwin, Aquinas and
Voltaire. This was followed by a successful wave of protests and strikes
within and around Manila that paved the way for the establishment of the
Union Obrera Democratica (UOD). This marked the shift of the
revolutionary struggle from a mere nationalist to an anti-imperialist
one.
UOD disintegrated in 1903 and from its remains, the party upholding
communism and socialism was established in 1938 and then later led the
Hukbalahap guerilla movement. They were the foremost opponents of the
Japanese forces prior to the reinforcement provided by the Americans.
This was also the period when the revolutionary movement began to feel
Bolshevik influence.
The tradition of struggle later proceeded to the establishment of the
Maoist-influenced Communist Party in the late 1960s which adopted a
nationalist strategy and protracted people’s war. It gained enormous
support from the masses; but it failed to grab power until its
fragmentation into smaller party formations due to the split in 1992.
Indeed, the counrty’s historical development has continuously enriched
its revolutionary tradition, not to mention the resistance efforts
outside of the national democracy movement, such as sectoral and
community -based resistance and the Moro struggle, among others.
However, such richness failed to translate immediately to the interest
of the people. In 1970s, the poverty rate was as high as 40 percent as
compared to the current rate which is 34 to 36 percent according to
National Statistical Coordination Board. This indicate marginal
improvement in terms of poverty reduction effort.
Unemployment, on the other hand, is pegged 11 million while
underemployment is up to 7 million. This is aggravated by the massive
destruction of our natural resources due to the growth orientation of
the economy and incapacity of the state to manage and to utilize it
equally in a sustainable way.
Furthermore, liberalization, coupled with chronic rent-seeking practices
in government offices, and the absence of a logical economic development
plan, inflicted serious injury to the domestic economy which further
exacerbated our deteriorating economic condition.
Another equally important issue is the marginalization of huge numbers
of citizens in making decisions that directly and indirectly affects
their political, social and economic lives. The existing political
structure makes citizens passive, inactive and apathetic. Their
political participation is reduced to routinary electoral exercises
where they will occasionally choose politicians who will represent them
in making and implementing policies.
We can hardly identify a historical period wherein Filipinos lived in
prosperity, abundance and relative peace, except during pre-Spanish
times. As described by Pigaffeta, the inhabitants of the archipelago
were in perfect health and had no physical defects. He got the
impression that food scarcity was not prevalent. While William Henry
Scott and a host of other writers validated the presence of slavery in
the archipelago during the pre-Spanish period, they never mentioned any
sign of poverty among local villages.
These findings make us think that the phenomena of poverty in the
Philippines occurred with the advent of Spanish colonization and
coercive formation of a centralized government. Unfortunately, several
studies have the tendency to conveniently pin down population explosion
as the cause of poverty, thus undermining the fact that this is brought
by systemic oppression. For instance, in Southern Asia, around 30
million households own no land or very little, and they represent 40% of
nearly all rural households in the subcontinent. Both the African and
Latin American continents, on the other hand, have similar data.
Moreover, land distribution in the nations of the South favors
large-scale commercial agriculture controlled by a few landowners. Ergo,
poverty can be rooted socially.
The Philippines is not an exemption. In 2000, the country ranked 77 out
of more than 150 countries with a poverty incidence of 34% and where the
human development index (HDI) figure was 0.656. In the fishery sector
alone; 80% of fisher folk households live below the poverty line,
(Israel, 2004). Four primary factors are widely accepted by most of the
players in the fishery sectors:
land;
destruction and stock depletion;
shelter, infrastructures, etc.).
Though the Fishery Sector Program Report of the ADB (1993) also cited
high population density in most near shore areas, this must not lead us
to the conclusion that we are reaching the limit. We know for a fact
that the increase of population in coastal communities is due to
migration patterns. As noted by ASEAN-SEAFDEC in their technical report
in 2001, households displaced in agricultural lands seek economic
opportunity in coastal areas that are de facto open to anybody who want
to use fishery resources. Poverty therefore is not rooted to the natural
limit crisis; this is clearly brought about by structural problems, such
as the distribution of wealth and the control of natural resources.
It should be clarified that the idea of carrying capacity is well
recognized. This concept sets the limit of a number of organisms and
non-living matter in a specific ecosystem, based on the availability of
food, space and other vital materials necessary for their existence.
Also, part of this is the capacity of a specific ecosystem to absorb
pressure brought by extraction. But to set the record straight, the
destruction of natural resources (which resulted in the death of many
citizens and the loss of billions of livelihood) is not directly
attributable to population. In fact, it is public knowledge that big
corporations benefited from large-scale logging operations. And together
with large commercial mining, this eventually led to the denudations of
our forests. It should also be noted that mineral extraction is one of
the notorious polluters in the coastal zone that significantly reduce
fish stocks.
There is no sufficient evidence to prove that the country’s population
of 86 million is close to the limit imposed by carrying capacity of the
ecosystems. Clearly, food production is no longer a problem. In fact,
developed and even developing nations like China, India and Brazil, are
extra-aggressive in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements in order
to have full market-access to the economies of poor and other nations
where they can dump their huge surplus. In our case, the best available
data on poverty is highly attributable to low agricultural and fishery
productivity and poor economic performance; and this that can be
directly traced to government negligence, incompetence, irresponsibility
and non-accountability. Poverty is caused by unemployment; lack of land
to till; degradation of natural resources; lack of economic opportunity;
lack of social services, corruption and absence of a logical economic
development agenda.
The huge profits being produced through massive extraction of natural
resources do not deliver anything concrete to the people. We have enough
sources of food to feed the entire population due to the highly abundant
natural resources of the archipelago. But our finite resources are
totally limited to fuel economic growth or to sustain the greed for
profit of the elite.
With this conviction, we should be reminded that in order to establish a
society that is free, equitable and rational, capitalism must be
abolished and oppressive hierarchical political systems should be
replaced by a system where citizens are highly involved in all political
exercises, specifically in decision-making.
By the sixteenth century, the state was described as a “large-scale
governmental organisation effectively centralized by means of strictly
secular bureaucracy, often implemented by some kind of representative
body.” Since economic activities profoundly influence the operations of
centralized governments, the state’s definition continuously evolved,
but its original nature did not and will not change—i.e., to concentrate
power and its desire to increase inexorable sovereignty. Theoretically,
political power resides only in the state, but complete concentration of
power is impossible. That is why it is reasonable to say that the
existence of the state depends on its fairly concentrated power. Another
very important consideration is that state is the only institution that
can use legitimate violence to those who do not recognize its hegemony.
The hierarchical nature of the state inevitably creates a bureaucracy
that concentrates governance and decision-making in a few
representatives, akin to the institutional arrangement of the red
bureaucracy, corporate structures as well as churches’ organigram. A
handful of representatives will not constitute a democracy; on the
contrary, it is nothing but the rule of a few. Democracy will only be
realized through meaningful and substantial participation of the people
in politics to which they can relate, understand, appreciate,
contribute, perform, benefit and share duties and responsibilities.
The question is, how are we going to involve ordinary people in
political exercises if they do not have any interest in engaging
politics?
Such disinterest can be possibly rooted to the notion that the current
political affair cannot offer anything to the people. All are reduced to
promises and texts. For the common people, politics require complicated
technical skills and knowledge that can only be earned in prestigious
and expensive universities. Such an undertaking requires technical
jargon and an expensive outfit which gives the impression that politics
is an enterprise solely for the educated and rich families. The term
polis, as we trace it back to the tradition of the Greeks, refers to the
management of the community by the citizens. This is apparently lost its
meaning due to statism that turned politics into a career and lucrative
profession that marginalized ordinary people.
Our effort in imagining alternatives beyond the politics of the state
will be facilitated by regaining the lost meaning of “politics” and
calibrating it in our own context.
Anarchist alternatives which were precisely reflected in the October
1917 Revolution were characterized by spontaneity and the self-organized
revolt of the masses. Powerful united fronts of various forces developed
and crushed the oppressive Tsarist regime within three days. The massive
unrest of the people and other heterogeneous elements led to the
abolition of old regime without any particular alternative and without
instruction from any group. The majority of the masses did not directly
articulate the ideas espoused by the anarcho-syndicalists, but what the
people had done was exactly what the Anarcho-syndicalists had in mind.
Upon the abolition of Tsarist state, the people spontaneously organized
themselves. In Kronstadt, houses were socialized through the house
committees which extended to the entire streets that resulted in the
creation of street and block committees. The same thing happened in
Petrograd. The factory committees that appeared almost out of nowhere
were geared toward establishing “Producer Consumer Communes”.
During the Spanish Civil War, the eastern part of Spain was under the
influence of the anarchist movement. Workers’ direct management took
place in industrial and commercial establishments through the 2,000
collectives in Catalonia. In February 1937, 275 peasants and farm
workers’ collectives with a total of 80,000 members were formed in
Aragon near the front line, which occupied vast lands which were
abandoned by their landlords. In three months time, these collectives
increased to 450, with a total number of 180,000 members.
There are a lot of experience worth citing in Latin America, Asia and
Africa; but these are poorly articulated and are seldom mentioned in our
history books. The anarchist movement is barely mentioned, despite of
its profound influence in the early stage of Philippine nationalist
resistance and early part of the anti-imperialist struggle in the
archipelago.
Direct democracy is not a new idea. This was and is still being
practiced in many parts of the world. But this concept is poorly
explored due to the “power hungry” behavior of the political and
economic elite and some leftists who actually advocate and practice
authoritarianism.
To refresh our minds, the original Greek meaning of politics came from
the word polis, which entails that the people directly formulate public
policies through face-to-face processes called assemblies which are
based on the ethics of complementarity and solidarity. Of course, the
idea was not perfect because the citizens who had the privilege to
participate in community management were those who owned slaves and had
the luxury of time. But the tradition of direct democracy was evidently
workable.
Confederal structures have appeared in history time and again, like
those of the 16^(th) century Spanish Communeros and the American town
meetings which even reached New England and Charleston in the 1770s.
This also includes the Parisian sectional assembly during the 1790s, and
which occurred again in 1871 in Paris Commune, and so on.
Instead of organizing a party, why do we not go back to the communities
and localities? Political parties can easily claim that they have an
organized network and mass base in the local level, which we will not
try to refute. Our concern will focus on the kind of politics that they
are employing. Their organizational set-up is inherently top-down due to
the representation system wherein a few individuals from the party would
represent the interests of the entire nation. This breeds bossism
wherein a few people are in the apex of the hierarchy. Moreover, they
have authority vis-Ă -vis to their members which will eventually, end in
a leader-and-led relationship. Hence, people become simple members.
Instead of having active, creative, imaginative and dynamic citizens, we
have passive and mechanized constituents whose duty is reduced to
attendance in mobilizations and routinary selection of leaders that
merely reinforces the culture of obedience.
Democracy is not about making obedient followers. It is not about
imposing uniform rules to a complex and diverse population in terms of
their interests, views, way-of-life, prejudices, economic activities,
social and natural environment, culture and spiritual life. Rather,
democracy is about creating a political atmosphere which is
participatory and inclusive of this highly diverse population, and which
is based on the actual needs and interests of the communities.
We do not intend to undermine the initiative of political parties when
it comes to advancing the interests of the community. But perhaps it is
plausible to think that since leftist parties are only among the
minority, they should strive more to gain political value and leverage
so that they mobilize the people. Their interest therefore is not
necessarily identical with those of the communities or localities since
the latter are characterized by their diversity. Traditionally, leftist
parties are class-based and have a great tendency to overlook other
sectors and groups who are also exploited and are significant in number.
This approach often fosters elitism upon the glorified class.
In a broad sense, direct democracy will be applied by organizing free
assemblies at the local level. People’s organizations that are based on
their nature such as peasants, fishers, women, youth, indigenous people,
vendors, tricycle drivers, jeepney drivers, homeless, gays, neighborhood
associations, religious groups and other formations at the localities
should be encouraged to organize themselves.
Based on experience, people will surely participate in political
processes if the topic to be discussed is directly related to their
interests; to their daily activities and to the immediate and strategic
needs of the communities. People will conduct face-to-face meetings at
the barangay level to tackle their immediate concerns; they will share
ideas, duties and responsibilities to address their issues in relation
to other barangays. They are encouraged to engage in discussions and
debates on public facilities using their own language and the existing
local mechanisms to facilitate local political mechanisms.
Obviously, an ideal political structure should not mobilize people for
the purpose of elevating the political value of certain political
parties for elections or for the goal of taking political power which,
in a sense, would merely reinforce the inactivity of their constituents.
This kind of political structure will bring the political arena at the
very doorstep of the people; this will create a political atmosphere
that encourages the citizens’ active, creative, imaginative and dynamic
participation.
The ultimate direction of this process is to empower the vast number of
marginalized citizens from below. This politics is educative since it
will enhance the people’s capacity to democratically discuss, decide,
formulate and implement plans with regard to their common resources and
own affairs.
In general, the pre-Hispanic barangays were interdependent but loosely
federated. Among their bases of interaction were trade, commerce and war
(raids for slaves and wives and revenge). “Highly” federated barangays
were usually found in river mouths or wherever the ports were
strategically located for commerce and where economic activities were
high. This is not to romanticize the idea of the baranganic system but
rather to trace our traditional practice of decentralism that actually
proved to be far more humane than the statist model that was imposed by
that colonialists and that is still in place until today.
Our idea of decentralization here should not be mistaken as parochialism
which might lead to the isolation of the locality from the rest of
world. Confederalism as defined by Murray Bookchin “is above all a
network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are
elected from popular, face-to-face democratic assemblies”. In our
context, structures will be independently organized from barangay or
community level. Every barangay or community assembly will elect
delegate/s whose function is purely administrative, such as transmitting
information and other practical functions. Policy-making will take place
strictly at the popular assemblies in the barangay and in community
level. Delegates have no power to decide and they are totally recallable
and accountable to the assemblies that mandated them. More importantly,
delegates posses no privilege and authority over the citizens.
Confederal councils comprised of substantial delegates will be organized
at the municipal and city level; then municipalities and cities will be
confederated at the provincial level. The regional level will then
comprise the Archipelagic Confederation. A confederation is a structure
that connects and interlink politically and economically every community
of the archipelago, and where the functions are administrative and
coordinative. The ultimate idea of confederation is to integrate all
social structures, not in a hierarchical or top-down orientation, but
rather vice-versa. Public policies will be formulated from the
grassroots, which will be expressed at the municipal, city, provincial,
and regional levels.
The basis of integration is not competition but rather mutual
cooperation, complementation and solidarity. Every sector, group and
other formations in a municipality will find their place in production
processes to ensure the needs of the communities.
We cannot blame groups inclined to party system and statist model if
they immediately express a low appreciation for the proposed alternative
system. Indeed, taking political power is a short cut to institute
desired changes; but such changes are not necessarily meaningful for
those who did not participate in the seizure of political power. In many
instances, the great bulk of masses are reduced into mere spectators to
the political exercise initiated by the few, again making passive,
inactive and obedient constituents.
True, this process is strategic because it also involves changing the
behavior of people who are highly influenced by the dominant
institutions that promote and reinforce an order based on competition,
individualism and imposed uniformity. As part of processes that resist
the current order and the behavior that reinforces it, direct democracy
can be employed. In the heist of the brutal effect of grow-or-die market
capitalism and a corrupt centralized state, communities should
persistently defend their own physical and social space by defining its
specific interests in connection to larger communities. We should
encourage locals to self-organize and maximize their traditional
networks to protect and advance the interests of their localities in
relation to the interests and needs of other communities.
Anderson, Benedict. “Under Three Flags; Anarchism and Anti-Colonial
Imagination.” 2006.
ASEAN-SEAFDEC. 2001 Conference on Sustainable Fisheries for Food
Security in the New Millennium: “Fish for the People.”
Bookchin, Murray. “Libertarian Municipalism.” Article published in Green
Perspectives — October 1991.
Bookchin, Murray. “The Meaning of Confederalism.” Article published in
Green Perspective No. 20 November 1990.
Bookchin, Murray. “What is Communalism? The Democratic Dimension of
Anarchism.” Accessed from Anarchy Archive.
Bookchin, Murray. “Municipalisation: Community Ownership of the
Economy.” Accessed from Anarchy Archive.
Bookchin, Murray. “The Population Myth.” Accessed from Anarchy Archive.
Chomsky, Noam. Interview by Red and Black Revolution in May 1995.
Friedrich, C.J. and Brzezinski Z.K. “Totalitarian Dictatorship &
Autocracy.” 1972.
Maximoff G.P. “Syndicalists in the Russian Revolution.”
National Statistics Office. “Socio-economic Characteristics of
Households in the Philippines.”
Quimpo, Nathan Gilbert. “The Philippines: The People Power Revolution of
1986.”
Scott, Henry William. “Barangay” Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture
and Society.” 1997.