Abhijit
The landslide victory of Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Junior, son of the former President Ferdinand Marcos, in Presidential elections of Philippines on 9th May 2022 came as surprise to many. Marcos Jr. is the son of Marcos Sr. who was made to flee the country in a revolutionary upheaval called People Power Revolution in 1986. Marcos Jr. who had fought the Vice-Presidential election 6 years back and lost by a narrow margin, won the election for the President this time with an expected thumping majority. He was assisted by Sara Duterte Carpio, the daughter of the earlier ruling President, Rodrigo Duterte, who decided to join Marcos Jr. and run for the office of Vice President. The voting for President and Vice-President is held separately in Philippines. Sara Duterte won the post of Vice President with a margin more than Marcos won his post of President. Duterte, who paraded himself as a ‘socialist’, and friend of communists, had his reign marked by strong push to neo-liberal policies, extreme unauthorized violence and illegal killings of people in the name of ‘war on drugs’. The rise of the right-reaction under Duterte and Marcos in Philippines is also partly a result of the incorrect line pursued by the Communist Party of Philippines (CPP), which, owing to its dogmatism, continues to pursue a program of New Democratic Revolution, fails to see the capitalist development of Philippines and the emergence of Philippine bourgeoisie as a politically-independent bourgeoisie.
A Short History of Modern Philippines and its Politics
Philippines was historically a colony of the Spain and the USA and became independent in 1946. After being “discovered” by the Spanish adventurer Ferdinand Magellan, who named Philippines after Spanish kind Felipe, the Spanish colonized it till 1896. The Filipinos were fighting war of independence against Spain when the Spanish-American war started. On June 12, 1898, Philippines proclaimed independence in the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo. Spain ceded the colony of Philippines to the USA after the Spanish-American war with the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. The Philippine-American war broke out immediately in February 1898, during which the Filipino revolutionary forces announced Philippine Declaration of Independence in June 1898. The war ended in 1902 with victory of the USA and creation of a Philippine Assembly with male suffrage. US business firms plundered Philippines market, US goods had a free market in Philippines, and local industry was directed to supplying raw materials for US businesses. The struggle for freedom struggle continued with progressive victories, in 1916 with the US assuring eventual freedom, in 1934 with creation of Philippine Independence Act and Philippines commonwealth and independence by the Treaty of Manila on July 4, 1946.
After the Treaty of Manila, the US continued to have its military bases in Philippines and as per the “Bell Trade Act” passed by the US congress, US investments continued their privilege in Philippines with “equal” access to minerals, forests, and other natural resources, preferential tariffs for US products in Philippines, a 2:1 fixed exchange rate between Peso and Dollar, and no restrictions on currency transfer from Philippines to the USA. The Philippine Congress passed constitutional amendments to accommodate the US interests. The 3/4th support vote was secured by barring the opposition candidates from voting. Philippine President Roxas agreed for 99 year lease to US military bases, access to US military to public utilities and facilities at par with Philippine army, and pre-approval of US before Philippine granted bases to any other country. However he opposed military base in capital Manila, and non-applicability of Philippines criminal law to US army, the demand was finally given up by the US. The resistance in Philippines made US amend this act by Laurel-Langley Agreement abolishing the exchange rate of Peso, and few more changes. This signifies that the Philippines political independence was incomplete, but Philippine’s new rulers were not total puppets. Since then, the history of Philippines-USA relations has been one of a weak and prolonged struggle in which various sections of Philippines bourgeoisie have wrestled to ally or separate from US imperialism, essentially emerging as a politically-independent bourgeoisie which is a junior partner of US-imperialism today.
After independence, the Philippine bourgeois politics has been routinely a game-play between a small circle of elites, consisting of some of the richest families like the Quirino, Marcos, Macapagal, Quezon, Ramos, etc, constantly mired in corruption scandals, internal insurgency, the continued but diminishing influence of the USA, and political upheaval. The influence of the small circle of elites, can be judged from the fact that 200 wealthiest families hold nearly 16,000 elected political positions in the country. A survey in 2019 showed that 234 families “held more than 67 per cent of the seats in the legislature and 83 per cent of the Governors’ posts”. The power remains in the hands of the oligarchy of the wealthiest families, who have all turned into big capitalists now, with each protecting the interests of the others including the erstwhile Presidents, while claiming a larger pie of the surplus generated in the country when they are in power. Repression of the radical communist movement which has existed since the period of American rule, has been one of the main agendas of all governments. To achieve this, along with repressive laws, military actions, the successive governments have continued to deploy secret “black army”, which acts as death squads and is used for extra-judicial murders of working class leaders.
After Roxas’s death in 1948, Elpido Quirino became the President in an allegedly fixed election. During his tenure, Philippines sent its army to aid the South Korean mission of the US army, highlights the fact that US political control continued.
The Hukbalahap (or Huk) formed in 1942 to resist Japanese invasion was renamed as Peoples’ Liberation Army and formed as an armed wing of then Communist Party of Philippines (PKP, also called later as PKP-30) in 1950. After the Second World War, the US army started repression of the Huks. Many Huk leaders were released after independence in 1946. However, bowing to US pressure and for its own reasons the new Philippine state started a campaign of exterminating the Huks, starting with the “Nenita” unit in 1946. In 1950, the Truman administration of US also funded the Philippines to fight the Hukbalahap.
The much talked about Magsaysay award, is named after Ramon Magsaysay, the President of Philippines from 1953 to 1957, who had a major role in repression of Communists in Philippines. The role of funds from the USA in his election was quite open. Magsaysay was appointed as Minister of National Defense during the Presidency of Elpido Quirino to crush the Huk rebellion. He urged the President Quirino to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus. During the same period, the Hukbalahap was succeeded by the New People’s Army (NPA) as the armed wing of the Communist Party of Philippines (CPP) that was formed in 1956 . Magsaysay also formed the Manila Pact of 1954, to defeat the Marxist-Leninist movements in South East Asia. The American stooge, Magsaysay announced observance of Philippine American Day on every November 15, which is the anniversary of the inauguration of the Commonwealth in 1935. The US influence upto 1965 can be estimated from the fact that $80 millions invested during 1956 to 1965 brought profits of $387 million to them. The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few families continued, and it is estimated that by early 1970s nearly 400 families owned 90 percent of the total national wealth.
As a result of the Sino-Soviet split, and the open declaration of fight against revisionism by Communist Party of China (CPC), and as a part of the world-wide revolt by revolutionary cadre all over the world against revisionism in the communist parties, Jose Maria Sison led the ideological Rectification movement in 1965, leading to a split with PKP and forming the CPP. The CPP proposed a program of two stage revolution, consisting of a protracted people’s war for democratic revolution, to be followed by Socialist Revolution. This was clearly the result of the influence of the 1963 document by the Communist Party of China on General line of the International Communist Movement, an influence which has not subsided even today, and continues to mislead the Philippine revolution. The General Line itself was essentially and mainly correct for the contemporary world. However, its mechanical implementation without a creative analysis of concrete conditions in various countries by the respective communist parties exacted a heavy price in the form of programmatic dogmatism.
After Magsaysay, during the rule of Carlos Garcia (1957-1961) the lease of 99 years to US army bases was reduced to 25 years, priority was given to Philippine investors over foreign investors, further signaling a growing assertion of the Philippine bourgeoisie. Garcia, following the footsteps of Magsaysay, signed the Anti-Subversion Act of 1957, which outlawed the PKP-30, the Hukbalahap, and all organizations succeeding these two including the CPP and New People’s Army,
The years 1961–1965 under President Diosdado Macapagal brought the Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963 which significantly furthered the Prussian path of land reforms in Philippines. In the same period, Philippines shifted its independence day from July 4 (Treaty of Manila day) to May 12 (day of Emilio Aguinaldo’s declaration of independence) in 1962, but later renamed July 4 as the Republic day. This further indicated the increasing assertion of Philippine bourgeoisie, but continuation of the legacy of relations with the USA and its political domination.
Macapagal was succeeded by the infamous Ferdinand Marcos who ruled from 1965 to 1986, bringing in an era of dictatorship, along with rampant corruption, misery, debt-crisis and political upheaval in the end. Marcos sent a Philippine non-combatant military force to Vietnam in 1966, under heavy pressure from United States, but bowing to the pressure from within the country, he called it back in 1969. The year 1970 saw the establishment of the Kabataang Makabayan (KM), a militant youth wing of the CPP. The militant student movement lead to a massive protest in capital Manila against Marcos and the influence of the US. In 1971, making use of a bomb-explosion in a rally by the opposition Liberal Party as an excuse, citing “the danger of communism”, Marcos blamed the bomb explosions on Communists, declared martial law, suspended habeas corpus writ. Marcos used the dictatorship under martial law to rule by decree, suppress press, suppress civil liberties, banning strikes, abolishing the Congress, arresting communists, youth activists, opposition leaders and putting many in military detention camps, putting restrictions on travel, communication. Marcos described his rule as “constitutional authoritarianism”.This period saw 3,257 extrajudicial killings, 35,000 individual tortures, and 70,000 incarcerations.
The same period brought merry times for the Philippine bourgeoisie, as the GDP quadrupled from $8 billion to $32 billion, with average growth rates of 6 percent, with incidence of poverty (official estimates) growing from 49 percent to 59 percent. No wonder, Marcos has been a darling of the Philippine bourgeoisie. Marcos also took his “cut” from the loot, amassing reportedly more than $10 billion from corruption using government monopolies, loans from public money to the capitalists, direct swindling from public treasury, commissions, using dummy companies to stash money abroad, and misappropriating the foreign aid as well. In one of his secret diaries, Marcos said “I am president. I am the most powerful man in the Philippines. All that I have dreamt of I have. More accurately, I have all the material things I want of life — a wife who is loving and is a partner in the things I do, bright children who will carry my name, a life well lived — all.” Indeed, as we will see further, his son, Marcos Jr. is carrying his legacy forward.
Bowing to popular anger and the inter-elite rivalry, Marcos “restored” democracy by announcing Presidential elections in 1981, which after the boycott by the opposition, he won by “landslide margins”. In 1983 Marcos murdered the opposition leader Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. at Manila airport after he returned from an exile in US. The Presidential election of 1986, saw tampering with votes by both Marcos and Aquino’s wife Corazon Aquino, in which Marcos was announced as the winner. Aquino called for civil disobedience after the election results were announced. The military tried to suppress it, but after witnessing the mob of the millions of the people who surrounded the armed forces, the military gave up and refused to attack the opposition. The people revolted in what is called as People Power Revolution, the army and the ministers of Marcos withdrew support. The US had realized that Marcos’s days were over and they helped him elope from the country to Hawaii.
Corazon Aquino, was elected to be the President. Aquino, yet another stooge of the US imperialism did not bring any significant changes in relationship with the US. During the presidency of Corazon Aquino, the treaty extending the tenure or US military bases was not renewed in 1991 due to rejection by Philippine Senate, though Aquino was very keen to extend it. The US military had to leave by end of 1991. The struggle within the Philippine bourgeoisie can be seen here in the vote of the Philippine Senate.
Aquino was followed by Fidel Ramos in 1992, who served Ferdinand Marcos as an army General, and later switched sides when the tide turned against Marcos. The period of Ramos saw more opening up of the economy, liberalization, privatization along with repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law. Ramos, himself a big business tycoon, served the interests of the US imperialism. He was also on Asia Adviser Board of the American Carlyle group. Philippines joined the WTO during the regime of Ramos, thus leading to more austerity, deregulation and liberalization, resulting in eruption of movements of workers and peasants, a major event of which was the telephone workers strike, defeated after 32-days. Even after his term, Ramos continued to be an “adviser” to later Presidents, including Duterte, Gloriya Arroyo, Aquino III, clearly showing that he had an appeal across the sections of the Philippine bourgeoisie.
Ramos’s successor was Joseph Estrada, a former TV actor, whose tenure from 1998 to 2001, was mired in accusations of corruption, illegal gambling and murky bank deals, including some with Chinese firms, people’s disapproval as he failed to deliver on his promise to reduce rents. Backed by the rival business family sections, people erupted again in the second People Power Revolution in 2001 and drove him out of office, after the Senate judges in the impeachment court refused to open an envelope containing proof of corruption against him. Despite of two such People Power Revolutions, the communists in Philippines have not been in a position to turn the people’s discontent into a revolutionary movement, due to their ideological weaknesses and programmatic dogmatism discussed above.
Estrada was succeeded by Vice-President Gloriya Macapagal Arroyo, daughter of ex-President Macapagal Sr., who ruled upto 2010. Arroyo granted pardon to Estrada, continuing the tradition of the elites of protecting each other! She was a US-trained economist, a known friend of Bill Clinton, herself from one of the wealthiest families in Philippine and had the support of some of the biggest business families, including the old Spanish business families. Arroyo gave further impetus to privatization and Neo-liberal policies, increased taxes on poor, cut government spending. Her regime also resulted in protests by many groups of people raising demands for cheaper electricity, land redistribution, opposition to US troops deployed in Philippines to fight separatists and training the Philippine army. Arroyo always sent the right messages to the bourgeoisie by claiming to be taking “tough” (read: anti-people, pro-capital) decisions. Arroyo was alleged of election fraud during her second election, that she won by a small margin and proofs of her recorded conversations with election officials also emerged. Nevertheless, she never resigned and the popular unrest did not develop into another People Power Revolution. Arroyo, continued to be a vocal supporter of George Bush’s “war on terror’. During her period the atrocious Hacienda Luisita massacre occurred, in which farmers working on the Hacienda Luisita farm, owned by the family members of Aquino, were fired upon for demanding better wages.
Benigno Aquino III, another member of the Aquino dynasty, became the president after Arroyo, in 2010. He gave further impetus to Public-Private partnerships. He enforced the Revised Armed Forces of the Philippines Modernization Act, to continue the modernization of the Army and also signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, allowing the US military to have extended stay in Philippines have access to bases in Philippines, once again! He also filed an arbitration case against China under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on issues related to control in the South China Sea. The case has been won by Philippines, but result rejected by China. He also started the discussions to begin peace negotiations with the New People’s Army. The next election in 2016, was won by Duterte.
The Rise and Regime of Duterte: the Right-reaction to the Miseries of Liberalism
The rise of Duterte was part of the world-wide resurgence of the right-wing reaction in various forms, that also reflected itself in the rise of BJP-RSS fascism in India, Marine Le Pen in France, rise of AFD in Britain, Donald Trump in the USA, etc.
The policies of Neo-liberalism brought unprecedented miseries for the people of the Philippines. 20 percent of the rich in the country possess nearly half (45 percent) of the total income, with 30 percent going to the top 10 percent of the rich, while the bottom 20 percent of the poor earn only 7.5 percent of the total income. The country has 15 dollar billionaires. The political instability, rampant corruption, poor wages have pushed nearly 10 percent Filipinos to work abroad in Middle East, North America, Western Europe, East Asia, etc in professions like nursing, tourism, hotels, domestic-work, etc. Sale of body organs to survive is widespread in Philippines, yet another indicator of the miseries the working masses suffer from. The capital city of Manila is home to most homeless people in the world. The poor people of Manila sarcastically call the dwelling places of the ultra-rich as ‘imperial Manila’.
The miseries that the policies of liberalization have brought all over the world, lead to popular discontent against the liberal governments. In the absence of any proletarian revolutionary force equipped with correct political line and program, this discontent was successfully channeled by the bourgeoisie of various countries into either authoritarian, or fascist, or semi-fascist or some type of a bonapartist reaction. In Philippines, this role was carried by Duterte. The victory of Marcos Jr, who carries the legacy of his father’s dictatorial regime, after the terrorist reign of Duterte, is yet another proof that the facade of liberal democracy is maintained by the bourgeoisie only as long as it serves the interests of capital, and as soon as the economic or political crisis grows, it resorts to policies of repression, authoritarianism, bonapartism, or fascism.
Duterte, a lawyer, is a politician from the Davao city of Philippines. The Duterte family has held its sway over the Davao region for decades. Duterte started his ‘war against drugs’ in the Davao region and used it as a propaganda tool for nation-wide publicity. Duterte projected himself as a strong, decisive and powerful leader against US imperialism and corruption. Duterte represented the authoritarian upsurge of the Philippine bourgeoisie, supported by the petty bourgeoisie, which could also be seen in the higher percentage of votes he got from the middle classes. He could also successfully win over the Muslim and Christian votes, by promoting a policy of ‘federalism’. He even used left phrase-mongering to project himself as a ‘socialist’ and a messiah of the poor against corrupt elite families. All this lead to a thumping majority for Duterte.
Duterte reinstated the death penalty abolished in 2006, and led the notorious ‘war on drugs’ leading to illegal murders of thousands of people all over the Philippines. One estimate suggests that more than 30,000 people have been killed during his regime in the name of ‘drug war’. He passed the new anti-terror act in 2020, suspending the habeas corpus, reminding of the Marcos era, and thus legitimizing illegal detentions. Duterte has used not only police, but also the vigilante groups, and paramilitary organizations and his private gangs to carry out the murders. His ‘drug war’ is being investigated by the International Criminal Court.
Revealing his true character, Duterte ditched the “promises” of increasing wages, and ending contractualization. He furthered the public-private partnerships, started the “Build, Build, Build” infrastructure development program to help the construction sector bourgeoisie grow faster, increased indirect taxes and reduced direct taxes as part of his comprehensive tax reform program, signed the Ease of Doing Business Act giving the capitalists more freedom to loot the country, thus continuing with the neo-liberal policies.
Even after his election, Duterte kept issuing statements against the USA, at times targeting Obama, and constantly talking of CIA’s attempts at his murder, and tried to project a tilt towards China-Russia axis. This was not only to pamper the masses, but in fact also the negotiating act of the Philippine bourgeoisie to claim a larger share of the surplus in Philippines against the US imperialism. Duterte engaged with China in the ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative to connect various cities and islands of Philippines using optical fiber cables and satellite information passways, as part of OBOR. He also expressed interest in joint military exercises between the Philippine Armed Forces and China’s People’s Liberation Army in May 2018. In 2018 he signed a joint oil and gas development MOU with China in the West Philippine Sea, but canceled it in 2022, saying that the MOU has led no-where. While he ordered Philippine army to take over nine uninhabited islands in South China Sea in April 2017, he continued negotiations with China and disclosed in September 2019 that China was ready to offer a controlling stake in gas in Reed Bank if Philippines was willing to give up the South China claims. He also toured China, Japan, and initiated dialogue with European Union. Duterte praised Russian President Putin, and called him his “idol”. He signed an agreement with Russia on Defense and Technical Cooperation, and Russia donated thousands of rifles, and other military gear to Philippines. During the COVID-19 crisis he secured vaccines from China, Russia and also the USA. China donated non-combat military equipment worth 1 billion Pesos in 2022. He also purchased the Brahmos missiles from India. All these events clearly indicate a shift in the relationships with the USA. However the strategic relationship with the USA is far from over. Duterte announced in February 2020 that he is terminating the Visiting Forces Agreement with the USA. However after negotiations, he kept suspending the termination, and renewed the agreement in July 2021. Philippines voted against Russia condemning the invasion of Ukraine. Thus, although negotiating its options on the world stage, the Philippines bourgeoisie continues its alliance with the US imperialism.
Continuing the policy of all Philippine governments, Duterte continued repression of the communist movement, by initiating ‘Operation Sauron’ to eliminate the communist guerrillas, who suffer from left-deviation and a terrorist line. He also used the same campaign to target the environmental activists, community organizers. He imposed the martial law in Mindanao region and declared the CPP-NPA as a terrorist group.
The alliance of Duterte with arch reactionary Marcos family can be easily spotted. Duterte helped reburial of Marcos Sr. in the hero’s cemetery in Manila, thus beginning the process of reestablishment of his legacy. It is the same alliance that has now continued with Duterte supporting the candidature of Marcos Jr, and his daughter claiming the post of Vice-President.
It is also clear that contrary to his “left” rhetoric, Duterte has proved to an arch reactionary leader of the neo-liberal policies and furthered the interests of Philippine bourgeoisie. He has also lead the efforts of Philippine bourgeoisie for assertion of its independence by exploring ties with the Sino-Russian axis.
The Significance of Marcos Jr.’s Victory
The victory of Marcos Jr., son of a dictator, and Sara Duterte the daughter of an arch-reactionary leader was a surprise to many, for obvious reasons. Apart from carrying the tainted legacy of his father, Marcos Jr. had his own record of culpability. Marcos Jr. was convicted for seven years of prison term in 1995 in a case related to tax-fraud, which still awaits implementation. In 2018, his mother, Imelda, was sentenced to 12 years jail term for hiding her unexplained wealth, which was later overturned by the higher courts.
However, the Marcos family never went out of politics of Philippines. The Marcos family returned after the death of Marcos Sr. and resumed their careers in politics. The bourgeoisie of their home province Ilocos Norte were united behind the Marcos. Marcos Sr.’s wife Imelda herself tried for the post of the President twice, starting in 1992. However her son Bongbong and daughters Imee and Irene kept winning this or that electoral seats in province or Senate. The Marcoses started a serious effort at erasing from public memory the negative images of Marcos Sr.’s rule since 2010 and portrayed the era of Marcos Sr. one of golden age which brought good life to working people. The victory in the recent elections was also partly a result of this campaign.
Victory of Marcos has a lot to do with his alliance with Duterte. The constitution of Philippines allows only a single-term for the President, so Duterte could not fight for a second term. The victory of Marcos Jr. in alliance with Duterte’s daughter is nothing the continuation in power of the Duterte faction of bourgeoisie. This is evident in the recent decisions and statements of Marcos Jr. Marcos has already said that he will continue with the foreign policy of Duterte. He has also said that he will be shielding Duterte from the proceedings of International court. He has also announced that his “Build, Better, More” plan which is a continuation of “Build, Build, Build” plan of Duterte.
On the foreign policy front, Macros has again underlined the policies of a politcally-independent bourgeoisie pursued by Duterte, when he said “I do not subscribe to the old thinking of the Cold War where we had this spheres of influence where you’re under the Soviet Union or you’re under the United States” and “I think that we have to find an independent foreign policy where we are friends with everyone. It’s the only way.”
Of course, there can be no permanent friends, and no permanent peace in the era of imperialism, but Marcos represents the interests of a bourgeoisie that is striving to further its strength and leverage its national market and economy to claim a better share of the surplus of the world.
Philippines-USA Relationship
The American influence over Philippine politics, although a diminished one, continues even today. Philippines is a major non-NATO ally of United States, and thus receives major military equipment, arms, technology, priority treatment from US. However the struggle of Filipino people against the US imperialism, and its own growing strength has constantly pushed the Philippine bourgeoisie towards redefining the relationship. The journey of the slow and long struggle of the Philippine bourgeoisie against US hegemony can be seen in its struggle to define and re-define its independence day and republic day.
July 4, that was initially accepted as Independence day, celebrating independence from United States, was moved to a Republic Day and as a holiday, under President Macapagal. In 1955 Magsaysay declared observance of Philippine American Day on every November 15, which is the anniversary of the inauguration of the Commonwealth with USA. Later Ferdinand Marcos renamed this day as “Philippine–American Friendship Day” but moved it to July 4, and thus overlapped it with the Republic day. Later Marcos himself declared the Philippine-American Friendship day to be a holiday, but without mentioning the Republic day. Corazon Aquino suspended this day as a holiday in 1986. After the democracy was restored, President Marcos celebrated this day as a Republic day, again! In 2013, the President Aquino III declared January 23 as the Republic day, the day of the proclamation of the First Philippine Republic in 1899.
Thus, from a relationship that tried to define its existence with respect to the American rule, the Philippine bourgeoisie has progressed to a stage of defining it with respect to Philippine people’s struggle against colonialism in general, symbolically, which only reflects its growing economic power and political independence. This is clearly a reflection of the Philippine capitalist class’s changing relationship with US imperialism. For historical reasons, the redefinition of relations is and will be a long process in the case of Philippines. However, as social scientists we need to see the orientation of the historical development which alludes to the fact that the Philippine bourgeoisie cannot be simply characterized as a comprador bourgeoisie.
What Ails the Philippine Communist Movement
After having taken a stand against revisionism and forming a new party CPP after splitting with PKP-1930, the CPP lead by Jose Maria Sison has for a long time been a victim of a incorrect program, based on wrong characterization of the Philippines society as a semi-feudal society and a program of Democratic Revolution, as a result of continued influence of the 1963 General Line pronounced by the Communist Party of China. Unable to understand the capitalist development in Philippines, the CPP has continued on the path of Democratic Revolution and has now and then landed up forming alliances with bourgeois parties, including the most tyrannical ones, “trying to find” the national bourgeoisie.
It is a result of the incorrect program, that the strength of the CPP guerrilla cadre has diminished from tens of thousands to a few thousands and they have been now confined to few pockets of the country.
It is the incorrect program that led in the past to attempts to find “national bourgeoisie” and incorrect decisions of support to different actions of the governments, during the reign of Marcos Sr, Corazon Aquino, Macapagal, etc. In the recent past, the CPP allied with Duterte, calling him representative of the national or progressive bourgeoisie. Sison went on to say that “Mayor Duterte should become president if he is willing to have a democratic coalition government with the revolutionary forces and other patriotic and progressive forces of our people.” The CPP even put up photos of their slain leader Leonardo Pitao alongside Duterte to promote his candidature. The KM event went on to declare their highest award, the Gawad Supremo Award to Duterte, an award that has only been bestowed upon Sison so far. Duterte offered cabinet posts of Social Welfare, Labor and Agrarian Reforms to nominees of the left. In 2016, he called the CPP a “revolutionary government”. Duterte’s video conversation with CPP leader Sison, in which both agreed to develop local industries, implement genuine land reforms, etc. was widely advertised. Obviously, Duterte was employing crafty tactics to use the communists for his electoral campaign. CPP’s false hopes have ended up, expectedly, in Duterte banning the CPP itself. This incorrect characterization of Duterte, and many earlier rulers as national or progressive bourgeoisie is nothing but a result of dogmatism that has characterized the history of CPP over last few decades. It is this ideological weakness that has led the CPP to become an almost spent force.
An effort was made by Filemon Lagman in his “Counter Theses” to criticize the program of CPP, citing Lenin’s Development of Capitalism in Russia to point towards capitalist development in Philippines. However, Filemon Lagman himself was ideologically extremely weak, despite capturing certain realities of the capitalist development in Philippines. He failed to understand Maoism and Mao’s contribution to the development of Marxist philosophy and science. One can only mention his pitting revolutionary mass-line against class-line and claiming Mao’s theory of mass-line to be Maoism’s departure from Marxism-Leninism. This only showed that Lagman failed to comprehend the mass-class dialectics and the fact that a correct political line can only be formulated by the implementation of revolutionary mass-line in the light of Marxist theory. Filemon Lagman did allude to some serious problems in the line and program of Filipino Communist Party under Jose Maria Sison, but due to his own ideological weaknesses, he could not develop a comprehensive program of socialist revolution in Philippines. Lagman was murdered in 2001.
Land Reforms in Philippines
Philippines has witnessed a capitalist transformation of agriculture over nearly a century, following what Lenin called as Prussian path. Prussian path is a broad category and land reforms in a country need not be a carbon copy of those experience in Prussia or later in Russia to be classified as Prussian path of land reforms. Any type of junker-type capitalist transformation of land relations can be put in this broad category.
The Spanish instituted a system of land ownership similar to the Encomienda system, a type of a feudal tributary system, which they instituted elsewhere as well. In this system, a region of a land would be granted to an individual, who would make a community of people pay him feudal tribute and work on the land. It typically involved entrusting a leader of the community to extract the surplus and hand over to the Encomienda owner. In Philippines the Encomienda plantations were known as Haciendas. After the American conquest of Philippines, it negotiated with the Vatican the ownership of the land owned by Spanish clerics and Roman Catholic Church. The Church agreed for the sale of the land. The new Spanish Administration bought nearly 1,66,000 hectares of land, which later on passed mainly to Filipino estate owners.
The Sakadalista movement that started in 1933, under the leadership of writer Benigno Ramos, demanded redistribution of the estates, and reduction in taxes, including independence. The Sakadalistas lead an uprising in May 1935, which failed after the repression by Filipino-American government. However, as a result of the movement the Philippine Congress started a program of land redistribution via various estate purchases.
In 1933, the Rice Share Tenancy Act was passed by President Manuel Quezon, to regulate the share-tenancy contracts by establishing minimum standards, 50–50 sharing of the crop, limiting the interest to 10% per year, and protection against arbitrary dismissal of tenants by the landlords. However, the implementation of the law failed, because the municipal councils in provinces, under the landlord control, refused to implement the law. The landlords could even evict the tenants as the contracts were always made for one year only. The peasants demanded a law for automatic renewal of the tenancy contract. Although the 1933 law was amended, it could not be implemented properly due to loopholes and as landlords resorted to evictions of the tenants in thousands of numbers. The evictions converted some of the tenants into agricultural workers.
At the time of Philippines independence, the Tenancy Act was enacted in 1946 (Republic Act 34) which regulated the tenancy contracts, and aimed to provide incentives to tenant farmers, to promote more efficient agricultural production. The law also defined share tenancy and leasehold tenancy. In share tenancy the landlord furnished land, while the tenant furnished labor. The law also listed provisions for dispossessing the tenant. The law required the agreements to be registered. The law also laid down maximum share of the landlord under various conditions. It stipulated to split the product 70:30 between tenant and landlord on first-class land when tenant provided all the implements, animals and expenses, and smaller share under other conditions. Thus, now an elected parliament was making law for the regulation of the tenancy, indicating a slight advance on the Prussian path of reforms.
Later, under President Macapagal, the Agricultural Land Reform Code was enacted in 1963. It specified the policy to “divert landlord capital in agriculture to industrial development”, “dignified existence for the small farmers”, “apply all labor laws equally and without discrimination to both industrial and agricultural wage earners”, “more vigorous and systematic land resettlement program and public land distribution”, etc. The law converted all “share tenancy” systems into “leasehold systems”, and protected the rights of lessee farmers from any forceful eviction except by courts, leasehold rights to the successors of the lessee farmers. The law did away with fixed share system of the Act 34, and thus opened up the avenues for fixing of a rent as per the market, thus starting the conversion into a capitalist rent, determined by the law of averaging of the rate of profit, effectively determined by the market. These reforms were similar to the reforms implemented by revisionists in West Bengal of India. Further the law allowed eviction if the lessor wanted to convert the land “into residential, factory, hospital or school site or other useful non-agricultural purpose” or if “agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices”. The law at the same time also specified the rights of agricultural workers, including minimum wages, a law that is still missing from capitalist countries like India. The law also specified norms for the expropriation of private lands, although the provisions were kept very weak. It also made provisions for infusion of credit in agriculture with establishment of agricultural credit administration, establishment of courts to deal with cases, thus weakening the juridical power of the feudal landlords. With all these provisions, the law gave a push to the Prussian path of land reforms in Philippines.
In 1987, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was created during rule of President Cory Aquino. The Republic Act No. 6657 enacted in 1988 talked of “more equitable distribution and ownership of land, with due regard to the rights of landowners to just compensation”, “founded on the right of farmers and regular farm-workers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farm workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof”, “right of farmers, farm-workers and landowners, as well as cooperatives and other independent farmers’ organizations, to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program”. The Act provided for a phased implementation of land acquisition and redistribution in the order of (a) idle, abandoned, voluntarily offered, government devoted, etc (b) public agricultural lands (c) private lands, with a specified land ceiling. Clearly the law was for a delayed and slow pace of land reforms, giving enough scope to private landowners to further convert themselves to capitalist farmers. The practice of stock distribution option instead of land distribution also started after this program. Out of the aimed 3.8 million hectares of private land to be distributed, 1.77 million hectares was distributed by the end of 1992. Interestingly the act also identified agricultural workers as beneficiaries of land distribution, and not only the tenant farmers.
The same program was advanced by later governments. The Ramos government encouraged investment by landowners in rural-based industries connected to agriculture. The Estrada government encouraged joint ventures, contract farming, corporates into agriculture. The CARPER (CARP Extension with Reforms) program followed CARP. The CARPER had a bias for distribution of land to organized farmers, recognizing the fact that organized farmers would make better capitalist producers. It also recognized the importance of ownership of land by women.
All these developments indicate development of capitalism in agriculture in Philippines, following a particular version of the Prussian path. The capitalist development can be seen in other statistics as well.
As of 2021, almost 48 percent of the population of Philippines was urban, and it should be noted that not all of the 52 percent rural population is engaged in agriculture! In 2019, only 22.9 percent of the total employed people were engaged in agriculture, a number which was 45 percent in 1991. That means there is significant migration of working age population to work in cities. The rate of migration to cities is nearly 2 percent per year. Philippines has a labor force participation rate of nearly 64 percent in May 2022, more than India’s. The total number of household members engaged in agriculture, as per census of 2012 were 85,12,092, that is nearly 85 lakhs, in 2019. “The employed persons in agriculture comprised of 74.6 lakh males and 22.4 lakh females in 2019” that is nearly 97 lakhs, and, the same number being 1.06 crore in 2021 out of a population of nearly 11 crore. Thus the number of agricultural workers is clearly growing. As per the Philippine Statistics Authority, the Proportion of employed persons in agriculture, by class of workers to total agricultural employment, in 2019 included 33.6 percent people as workers (earning wages), the own account workers to be 52.2 percent, and unpaid family workers to be 14.1 percent. In 2021, agriculture contributed only 9.6 percent to the GDP, indicating that industry and services were contributing heavily, indicating the definite growth of capitalist economy. Agricultural exports in 2021 amounted to more than 6 billion dollars, further indicating growth of commodity economy in agriculture.
The differentiation in agriculture can be vividly seen. The average “land holding average area of farms/holdings decreased from 2.84 hectares per farm/holding in 1980 to 1.29 hectare per farm/holding in 2012”. Along with this, “the number of farms/holdings increased from 1980 to 2012 by 62.6 percent”. This shows that land is getting fragmented with hereditary rights passed on to next generations. The number of large farms in Philippines is very high compared to countries like India, however, the differentiation in sizes of land-holdings shows many variations. Nearly 0.03 percent of land-holders hold an average of 283.42 hectares, 9.31 percent holders hold an average of 4.08 hectares, while 38.83 percent hold land of only 0.13 (less than an acre) hectares of land, with all intermediate strata holding progressively proportional amounts of land. Importantly 15 percent of the farms/holdings amounting to 10.7 lakh hectares were tenanted (payment in-kind) and 3 percent of lands were leased (payment in cash), while 8 percent of farm/holdings were rented free, and nearly three fifth of the farm/holdings were fully-owned or in owner-like possession, thus effectively meaning they were tilled by farm-laborers or poor and middle farmers. This last type of farm/holdings included those held under Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) awarded under land reforms, Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) also awarded under land reforms under RA 6657 of 1987, Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title/Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CADT/CALT) awarded to indigenous communities, and land under inheritance.
As per the official admission of the Philippine government, 906,652 hectares of land was yet to be acquired in 2016, consisting of 771,795 hectares of private land and 134,857 hectares of public land. The total agricultural land in Philippines is around 13.42 million hectares. Thus according to the government the land yet to be acquired was just 6 percent of the total agricultural land. Even if this was an under-estimate, it is unlikely that the it is a gross under-estimate.
All the above statistics clearly point out that the ownership of agricultural land has increasingly turned capitalist in Philippines.
The Corporate Large Farms of Philippines
The development of capitalism in Philippines can also be seen in the large corporate farms that the Haciendas have now become. An illustration in the form of the Hacienda Luisita, which has been in news for massacre of protesting workers, should suffice.
The Hacienda Luisita is a 6,453-hectare sugar plantation. It was earlier owned by a Spanish corporation Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas (Tabacalera). The Luisita estate owned an advanced sugar factory from before independence and employed large number of workers. This has also led to a large sugar and other agriculture related industry in Philippines. In 1957 due to the fear of the Huks, the Spanish owners sold it to Philippine owners and the estate is now effectively owned by the relatives of Aquinos, the very Aquinos who led the rebellion against Marcos Sr. During the reign of Marcos, the estate faced many law-suits for land reforms, but estate maintained that it had no tenants! In 1987, during the rule of Aquino, the Mendiola Massacre took place in which the farmers of the Luisita estate were fired upon when they marched on Presidential palace. Later, Aquino passed the Republic Act 6657 which allowed a Stock Distribution Option (SDO) to farmers, instead of actual land. Nearly 93 percent of the farmers opted in favor of the stock options. As of now, the big capitalist incorporates of this corporate estate hold more than 67 percent of its shares. The remaining 33 percent of the stock shares are held by the farm workers. Further in 1995, some of the land was reclassified as commercial, industrial and residential land. The wages continued to be very low and the situation of the farm workers continued to be miserable. In 2004, a protest of United Luisita Workers Union (ULWU) and the Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union (CATLU) was crushed with force by the state, leading to death of 7 workers and national outcry against Aquinos. Later in 2005 the farmers went to court saying that the SDOs failed to improve their lives, and the SDO was canceled, but the Supreme court stayed it. Supreme court lifted the stay in 2011. The order of Supreme court resulted in distribution of only 4,916 hectares of land among 6,296 farm-workers, thus leading to very small land-holdings of size less than acres each. It should be noted that the state of poor farmers owning as less as 2 acres in countries like India is often worse than workers. The Hacienda Luisita Incorporated (HLI) was awarded compensation for the land taken away.
Clearly this type of land reforms have lead to the first the farmers turning into share holders of a large corporate estate, making each of them a tiny capitalist share holder of a capitalist farm, and now some becoming actual poor farm-owners, who would eventually be losing out in the capitalist competition.
Thus, the farm workers are being misled into the path of land-reforms, when the land-ownership has turned not only capitalist, but into a corporate capitalist ownership. The path from here is not one demanding further fragmentation of private ownership into multiple private ownership, but one of nationalization, co-operatives, collectives and ultimately into state farming, that is the path of a socialist revolution.
The demand for land re-distribution is result of both the continued implementation of a wrong program based on wrong ideological understanding of the CPP and also the cleaver use of this deviation by the Philippine bourgeois state, to keep the communist movement engaged in a futile effort.
Often the size of the large-holdings is made an excuse for demanding land-reforms in Philippines. The large sized land-holdings are no parameter of a feudal system of agriculture, rather they are an indicator of corporate agricultural development in Philippines. In fact, in most advanced capitalist countries large land-holdings are a norm.
Philippines: The Question of Socialist Revolution
Thus, enough parameters point towards the capitalist development of agricultural not through radical land reforms, but through a particular variant of the Prussian path, in which the capitalist state has increasingly and slowly led to a nation-wide ejection of tenants and conversion into workers, conversion of some into capitalist landowners through partial redistribution of land, development of agricultural and related businesses, and conversion of agriculture into a corporate business making the workers and tenants into shareholders.
Further the capitalist development in industry and services of Philippines should also be noted. With a GDP per capita of more than 3,800 USD which is more than that of India, Philippines is one of the fast growing economies. The capitalism in Philippines has lead to the emergence of Philippine bourgeoisie in diverse sectors as in telecommunications, gas, oil, consumer goods, electricity production, hospitality, airlines, entertainment, real estate, tourism, etc. Although many big industries in Philippines are a result of investment by global capitalist firms from Singapore, USA, UK, Japan, etc, the growth of the industry and services led by domestic bourgeoisie of Philippines implies that it will assert its claim over its own territory and claim political control over the Philippine land. The Philippine bourgeoisie, thus, can be termed as a very weak junior partner of imperialism with main tilt towards the US for obvious historical reasons that have been explained above, but certainly not as a comprador bourgeoisie.
To summarize, the development of industries and services, the emergence of a largely dynastic bourgeoisie, large concentration of population in cities, the much reduced share of agriculture in GDP, the multitude of land-ownership and differentiation in land-holding, the growth in number of agricultural workers, the increasing amount of determination of the land-rent by market and not arbitrarily by a feudal landlord, the stock option method of making the tenants and the workers as share-holders are all indicators of capitalist development of agriculture and economy as a whole. Philippines is a capitalist country today and not a semi-feudal country.
The re-election of the Marcos family and the reign of Duterte have been partially possible due to the incorrect understanding of the revolution in Philippines by the CPP, which could not utilize the revolutionary upheavals and mobilize people’s anger against neo-liberal policies towards a socialist revolution, but ended up supporting the rise of the right-reaction! The lessons from Philippines, where a very powerful revolutionary communist movement turned into a lost cause due to incorrect understanding of the change in relations of production is a lesson for communists everywhere.
