There are two very good articles about the controversial Party-List System of the Philippines written
by Professor Randy David yesterday and by Atty Oscar Franklin Tan today. I would like to sketch out here my
personal take on the issue with the aim of developing a more solid thesis later on — thus, substantially contributing to the political debate and policy-making. My starting point is that the highly contentious concepts “marginalization” and “underrepresentation” is to be and must be understood in class terms or
in class ways.
First:
Professor Randy David is raising in his column — ‘Crumbs from the master’s table’ — some very important and fundamental point for deep reflection
regarding the "party-list system". Back to basics, what do the concepts
"marginalized" and "underrepresented" mean? I believe this
is where the original signification of the concept of "class" comes
in, particularly class as a "relationship" and a "process".
The party-list law, like many of our laws and institutions,
should be constantly re-examined if it still serves its purpose. All laws have
their 'telos' (i.e., ultimate goal). Apparently, we have many laws that have
been alienated from their own 'telos'. The task of constant re-examination is
essential simply because societies evolve and class relations are conflictual —
hence, the process of social change.
Warning: What follows is an academic exercise whose text/ideas
are derived from my thesis, inspired by the works of E.P Thompson and Ellen Meiksins Wood.
How do we understand class in relational and processual
terms, and not merely a location in
stratification theories? That is, in the general movement of history, "the
marginalized" or "the underrepresented" as a particular class
signifies not simply a specifically fixed structural "location" at
the bottom of a stratified society, but it is essentially suggestive of its
position of weakness in the "relationship" between classes within the
process of political-economic accumulation of power and wealth.
In theories of social change, the relationships of exploitation, conflict and struggle provide the impulse to processes of class formation.
Class relation — including elite dominance or marginalization of the masses at
some juncture — is therefore not preordained or predestined, but constantly
engaged in the historical movement of social change. In essence, the elites
have the interest in maintaining the status quo, while the marginalized groups
have the interest in mainstreaming their legitimate aspirations and causes.
Class formation — be it the elite class or the marginalized
class — is a historical process. Class formation is therefore not only
determined by ‘relations to the means of production’ (i.e., ownership) or by
simple existence of a shared ‘class consciousness’ (i.e., active awareness of
their common interests), but importantly as a ‘class in the process of
becoming, or making itself’ a social and historical force.
In other words, my practical message here is that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has to make a very intelligent decision regarding its current actions toward
the party-list system — decision that must not only be legalese but informed by
history, philosophy, sociology, and the social sciences. The COMELEC has to
invite several amicus curiae (friends of the court) to advise them impartially
and provide a more grounded decision on a delicate political issue such as the
party-list system that has significant implications for our democracy and the
life of our society.
Second:
Atty Oscar Franklin Tan’s commentary — ‘Party-list system’s dirty secret’ — offers an insightful "legal" analysis of the party-list law
in particular and the party-list system in general.... But the last paragraph
of Atty Tan’s commentary shows the limitation of this kind of legal analysis.
As indicated, I argue that the issue of "marginalization"
or "underrepresentation" is profoundly a class question
that necessitates class analysis. The denial of the class question allows Atty
Tan to legally justify the likes of Bam Aquino and Jaime Zobel de Ayala, who both belong to the political-economic elite class, to
participate in the party-list elections (see the last paragraph of his
commentary).
As suggested, class is to be viewed as a
"relationship": (1) between classes, and (2) among the same class.
(1) Relationship between classes is self-evident and has to do
with the relationship of inequalities, hierarchy, and differences.
Marginalization exists because of the process and relations of domination or
exploitation. Thus, it is essential to understand the concept of
marginalization in 'class ways'.
(2) Internal relationship is the relationship among members of
the same class. This refers to "common experience" or "lived
experience" or "shared experience" which shapes the social
consciousness of a particular class formation. For this reason, members of the
marginalized class have shared experience of being marginalized.
Representatives of marginalized sectors should therefore have lived experience with their
fellow members of the same class or sector. But note that lived experience is not necessarily defined by class origin or by the relationship to the means of production (as an owner or a labourer). In this sense, lived experience is an essential ingredient in the formation of class consciousness in particular and of class itself in general.
Therefore, in the concrete case of the party-list system: (1)
the marginalized groups have inherently unequal — or even antagonistic —
relationship with the ruling political-economic class; while (2) members and
representatives of these marginalized groups have lived or common experience as
a marginalized class.
I guess this summarizes my sociological take — in addition to
the legal analysis — with regard to the party-list system.
No comments:
Post a Comment