Below is a facebook comment I made on a friend's (AM) essay entitled
"Active Citizenship as Remedy to National Crisis: Some Sketch Notes"
Some random (academic) notes here.
First, I take a cue from your title, which
supposedly encapsulates your message, theme, or point. Two concepts should have
been well-defined in your discussion: 'active citizenship' and 'national
crisis'. I'm afraid that I have not fully grasped what you really mean by
'active citizenship' and what is the 'national crisis' being referred to.
Also, I have uneasiness with the term 'remedy',
which to me has a 'palliative' connotation (as I understand it, progressives as
much as possible must try to unpack, or to address, the root cause of a
problem).
Second, I think I cannot provide a conceptual
framework for 'active citizenship' without linking it to 'democracy' (and thus
its synonymous: 'socialism') and without critiquing 'capitalism' and 'elitism'
(which replaced active to 'passive citizenship' in the political sphere, and
which required active producers but excluded them from the fruits of their own
labour in the economic sphere).
Third, since your text has not made explicit
the linkage of the concept of 'active citizenship' with democracy, socialism,
elitism, and capitalism, you have linked it with, or come up with, terms that
do not seem 'progressive' to me (sorry, an unavoidable phrase) — 'empowerment',
'answer to old socialist thought', 'individual freedom', and 'empowered
consumer'.
Fourth, to elaborate on this....
[a] Active citizenship is essential to — but
not synonymous with — the struggle for democratization and the ideals of
democracy (which is not simply empowerment).
[b] Active citizenship is encouraged and
necessary for the realization of socialism (reclaim the original signification
of socialism and democracy without anymore referring to that 'old socialist
thought' of the NDs on democratic centralism).
Laging sabi ni Ka Dodong noon sa BISIG, ang
tunay na pagbabago ay magmumula sa mulat na mamamayan.
[c] Active citizenship is the antidote to
passive citizenship, which the system of elite rule has created. Elitism
entails the depoliticization of the citizens by reducing substantive ideals of
popular power into procedural/formal/electoral democracy. Walden Bello calls
this 'elite democracy', a regime of elite rule that has been restored by the
EDSA System. Walden refers to this as the 'permanent crisis' (which may be
similar to your idea of 'national crisis') and he problematizes how and why
every attempt at economic and social change failed under the EDSA System.
I think there are two recent books that can
guide or help substantiate your discussion on active citizenship and social
crisis — both written by Akbayan intellectuals: Walden and his Focus associates
(2004 [2009]) - The Anti-Development State: The Political Economy of Permanent
Crisis in the Philippines; and Nathan Quimpo (2008) - Contested Democracy and
the Left in the Philippines After Marcos.
Walden provides a very good
discussion of the historical installation of institutions and system of
'passive citizenship'. He pretty much addresses your problematique, arguing
that the political economy of permanent crisis in the Philippines delineates an
EDSA System of 'elite democracy' (i.e., formal/procedural/electoral
institutions for elite rule and elite legitimacy) coupled with an
'anti-development state' (i.e., weak state captured by the private sector).
While Walden traces the institutionalization of 'passive citizenship' (under a
pre-1930 American mode of governance for a colonial and postcolonial state),
Nathan focuses on 'active citizenship', highlighting a 'democracy from below',
with social movements and civil society intensifying the contested nature of
democracy in the country.
You may also want to look at Joel's (Rocamora
et al.) concept of 'low intensity democracy' in the early 1990s.
[d] Active citizens are not merely 'empowered
consumers' in the marketplace of capitalism, but active in the sphere of
production, as workers who are not simply 'empowered' but with 'active power'
to govern and control the workplace and their own lives. Here, active
citizenship is associated with particular 'class' power (not just 'identity') —
that is, strength, power, or rule by 'the people'; particularly, for and from
the point of view of the workers, the poor, the vulnerable, and the
marginalized.
Fifth, maybe we can also question the
suitability of the concept of 'individual freedom' with that of progressive
'active citizenship'. In your text, you criticized neoliberalism, but the idea
of individual freedom reminds us of the same language used by the most zealous
proponents of (neo)liberalism, namely, F. Hayek and Milton Friedman.
Yes, we have to take seriously the gains of
'liberal democracy' on civil liberties, rights against state and non-state
abuses, checks against arbitrary power. After all, socialists and progressives
have been a crucial part of these major victories and struggles. But there have
been mechanisms within the elitist and capitalist system that encourage passive
citizenship — as Walden ('elite democracy'), Ka Dodong ('plutocracy') et al.
have long been arguing.
Imagine the contradiction: a provision for the
protection of rights against the guaranteed powers of others (especially the
propertied class and the political elites). For instance, the reason why the
likes of the Marcoses, Estradas, Ampatuans, and soon the Arroyos remain
powerful despite prosecution or conviction is because our justice system only
deprives them of 'civil and political rights', but not their economic rights
and wealth which, in turn, can easily regenerate political power.
Instead of 'individual freedom', my sense is
that 'active citizenship' means self-government, or self-governance. That is to
say, the power to govern ourselves has to do with our day-to-day lives. For
example, the 'Right to the City' campaign that we are developing at IPD-AEPF is
about people having power over the creation and management of the community or
space we live in, reclaiming it from the control of market forces or real
estate developers in cahoots with city officials, or at least making those who
govern accountable to the governed.
And finally, 'active citizenship' encompasses
the entire society, from the workplace to the state, at both the polity and the
economy. The enactment of the Freedom of Information bill must be a priority in
the assertion of active citizenship and in democratizing the polity.
Under conditions of neoliberalism, the economy is
being depoliticized and made immune from public scrutiny. From Marcos to PNoy,
the technocrats have monopolized development plans and economic
decision-making, while progressives have never been part of the government's
economic team — progressives are always appointed to agencies (especially NAPC and at some point TESDA)
with the mandate to face and deal with the 'poor' but without equipping them/us
the institutions, power, resources, and positions to effectively address
'poverty'.
From a 'development' and 'economics' perspective, the driver has a point. Modernity so requires 'information', but the way people insist on (survival) 'instinct' is telling of the social progress we are now in. Unfortunately, the driver was not in a society where public authorities take responsibility of informing tax-paying citizens about risks and hazards in public spaces in real time.
