Political Dynamics Online Discussion, August 27, 2012

Monopoly of the Legitimate Use of Force

The military is one actor in state society relations which holds the most blatant manifestation of power – martial might.  And in the context of state building there are two important questions to consider:

1. How much power must the military hold?
2. should government be arranged or structured by the law to ensure this power be properly wielded?

Schulzke (2010) cites Tilly (2007) that weak states have a tendency to become undemocratic due to the presence of distrust in the state-society relationship, along with the situation of the need to contend with non-state centers of power.  In this situation the ultimate power of monopolized use of force must be properly balanced.  Too much power in the hands of state makes it abusive with the power to control elections, and almost every aspect of the life of the people.  On the other hand, too much power in the hands of non-state actors can not only lead to a weak state but to a collapsed state since the state loses power and other institutions and agencies jockey for social control.

But why the need for the armed forces in the first place?  It is essential to maintain security both from within and from outside of the territory.  Security at its basic form within the borders is to help control crime and maintain order.  However, certain factors rise up that complicate simple governance.  In the Philippines these belong to geographic, historical and economic areas of politics.

Philippine Political Geography and Geopolitics

Castillo (2011) in his thesis described Philippine political geography as:

“The Philippines is an archipelago composed of 7,100 islands.  Several of these islands are populated by peoples of unique cultures, languages,  and traditions. Governing over all these territories and peoples is a central government located in Metro Manila. Manila is a metropolis, center of both government and economy, at the heart of the largest island located to the north of the country. Observing the Philippines, one would notice how unequal the regions are. It is noticeable that Metro Manila and its immediate adjoining cities enjoy greater opportunities of development. In contrast, the farther one territory is from the capital, the less opportunities for development it has.”

This describes geographic, socio-cultural, and economic sources of tension with the borders of the Philippines.  Because of thes tensions of differences, and economic disparity, armed rebellions are produced.  To add to this, geopolitically - the Philippines’ islands are scattered across a territory of 300,000 km2.  Most of the dry land is covered with thick jungles (Schulzke, 2010).  More so, the islands get more scattered, more mountainous, more thickly forested as one goes farther away from the plains of Luzon in Manila.

The Arms Race History

The power to monopolize the use of force has been maintained as much as possible within the state by the authoritarian rule of the former colonizers.  However, Schulzke cites (Van der Kroef, 1987) that the coming of the United States and the involvement of the Philippines in World War II allowed the spread of weapons to local resistance fighters.  These fighters once fought against the Japanese, but eventually, new groups arise after the war.  These new groups now fight against the Philippine state.  Kessler (1989) as cited in Shulze observed that these local resistance fighters replenish arms by stealing from the national military itself, buy them from soldiers, or from actual arms sellers.

Non-state Weilders of Force (illegitimate wielders)

A reading of Shulze’s article allows us to enumerate the following autonomous agencies who jockey for power using military might:

1. National Liberation Front (MNLF) / Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) – raises arms due to socio-political conflict.
2. Communist Party of the Philippines-National People’s Army (CPP-NPA) –  raises arms due to widespread economic gap between the rich and the poor in the country.
3. Officials with private armies – to maintain their grasp upon government.

The Military Itself

The Philippine military itself had three prevalent illnesses coming from within and outside its ranks.  These according to Schulzke are:

1. The military itself lacks legitimacy in the areas where they get assigned within the Philippines.  The local citizenry resent or do reject their presence.  This is usually due to their conduct and manner of treating the residents.
2. The military has poor counterinsurgency tactics.  It is not that they lack technology, but they lack “cohesion, loyalty, and morale”.  The leaders are unable to instill these traits among the soldiers.
3. The military is politicized.  They are personal tools of those who seat in government, and the various politicians (whichever is more influencial, usually in terms of money payments) are able to pull their strings.

The Solution

For all three problems, Schulzke proposes that the military arm of the government must be depoliticized.  Politicization is the effect of politicians, not statesmen, who try to use politics as a game to pursue their own personal agendas (usually either to enrich themselves or maintain their government positions).  Proper depoliticization of the military will bring about professionalization both in skills and conduct.  A professionalized military can then focus on training.  A professionalized military can focus on doing their constitutional mandate rather than obeying the commands of their patron politicians.

Sources:

Castillo, R. M. (2011). Federalism and Its Potential Application to the Republic of the Philippines. MA Thesis. Manila: University of Santo Tomas Graduate School.

Schulzke, M. (2010). Democratization and Military Reform in the Philippines. Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 1(2), 320-337.

______________________

For the class

 The first question was answered by Schulzke through Tilly.  For todays blog discussion, I want your own professional points of view on any of the topics covered.  That includes the second question as raised above, along with all the boldfaced subheadings.  Note that you are not to discuss every topic.  Focus only on one.  Your task is to give substantial explanation on the phenomenon (e.g. What is the true reason behind a particular insurgency?  Are there other private armies in the Philippines?).

Or give a particular example of one of the topics (e.g. How is the military politicized? How poor is the military’s strength or counterinsurgency tactics?).

Since you are focusing only on one topic, ensure no duplication of discussions and samples, and use sources to establish your claims.

Each student gets one paragraph, 3-5 sentences.  This is considered as an online class recitation (75-100 pts to be factored in the individual recitation grades).  Deadline of comment posting is until August 28, 2012 (7:00 p.m.).

Ps. 

First two rounds of debates start on Sept. 3, 2012.

Here’s the complete list of groupings and their motions:

Round 1 – N vs F : Juvenile criminal laws should be made harsh.

Round 2 – G vs C : Religious symbols must be prohibited in government offices.

Round 3 – M vs D : Gay couples should be given a chance for legitimate relationship rights.

Round 4 – H vs B : The Philippines should maintain friendly relations with China.

Round 5 – L vs I : Employer’s must accede to worker’s demand for higher wages.

Round 6 – J vs E : The control over utilities such as power and water supply should be returned to the government.

Round 7 – K vs A : The Philippines require a bloody revolution.  (May be defined thematically)

Political Dynamics Online Discussion August 21, 2012

Elections and Party Politics

One of the best settings for observing political dynamics is in the arena of electoral politics.  It is here where members of the society test their mettle in gaining a position within government, and it is where traditional politicians commonly jockey to maintain what power they have within the state.

In this regard, Mark R. Thompson (2010) applied the dialectics of Hegel in analyzing Philippine Politics.

The Dialectic analysis style of Hegel followed a Thesis>Anti-thesis>Synthesis pattern of observing the flow of history in society. The Thesis is a current acceptable situation or truth.  Anti-thesis is a sitation which arises to challenge the Thesis.  Finally, the Synthesis is a resolution of both situations in society.  And with regards to Philippine electoral politics, Thompson applied this in conjunction with three (3) election styles.

These styles include:

1. Populism - exemplified through Ramon Magsaysay, Jose Marcelo Ejercito (Erap Estrada), and Ronald Allen Kelly Poe (Fernando Poe Jr.). The campaign them is "vote for me because I will be good to the masses (particularly the poor).
2. Clientelism - embodied in Ferdinand Marcos and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.  The electoral base is the rich middle class.  These rich middle class are the clients with whom the candidate establishes ties to secure support, usually in the form of monetary funding.  Marcos' clients were his KBL party members and his cronies.  GMA's clients were the taipans (wealthy ethnic Chinese).  It is riddled with corrupt activities since the political candidate owes his or her government office to the clients.
3. Reformism - currently self-styled by President Benigno Aquino III.  Whose campaign style is not about giving to the masses but all about the idea that the reformist must be elected into the seat of authority because he or she is good.

Thompson equated these campaign (election) styles to the Hegelian system wherein

• Populism is the thesis of Philippine party politics.  Politicians, particularly new ones win by appealing to the masses.
• Clientelism is the anti-thesis to populism.  Politicians, particularly Trapos use this to counter populist competition in election.  The funds provided by the clients are used to a) buy votes, b) fund electoral fraud, c) fund media campaigns, d) fund goons for intimidation.
• Reformism is the synthesis which attempts or rises to solve the status of the state which has been plagued by either underdevelopment due to populism or corruption due to clientelism.

As most dialectical writers agree, the cycle can go back to another thesis.  The current synthesis becomes the new thesis. And against it another anti-thesis will come.  Thompson suggests that if the reformist regime doesn't provide the needed political goods, then society might demand for another populist ruler. 

For those who want to read the full article it is sourced in the syllabus as :

Thompson, M.R.. (2010).  After Populism: Winning the War for Burgeois Democracy in the Philippines.  In Y. Kasuya, and N. Quimpo (Eds.), The Politics of Change in the Philippines (pp 47-72). Quezon City: Anvil Publishing Inc.

For discussion I want you to post comments either:

1. Regarding other politicians using these election styles.
2. Your own analysis of the dialectic cycle of populism>clentelism>reformism>populism in Philippine politics.

And add a comment explaining PREDATORY POLITICS as can be observed in the Marcos and GMA regimes.  Better comments include descriptions of political activities on how these presidents became predators within the state.  How did they manipulate the laws, institutions, situations and people to maintain power?  NO REPETITION OF PREVIOUSLY POSTED IDEAS. If its same topic, make sure to extend or elevate your analysis to avoid a rehash.

Thus there should be two topics covered in your posts (First on either campaign styles or dialectics and second on predatory politics). Pls. limit comment posts in two paragraphs containing 4-5 simple and direct sentences each.  You may re-post in reply to your classmates comments to further the discussion.

Reference for predatory politics is in the reading listed in the syllabus: 

Quimpo, N. (2010).  The Presidency, Political Parties and Predatory Politics in the Philippines.  In Y. Kasuya, and N. Quimpo (Eds.), The Politics of Change in the Philippines (pp 47-72). Quezon City: Anvil Publishing Inc.

Points will be graded as a 20 item quiz.  10 pts for content, 5 pts for organization of ideas, 5 for composition.  Deadline of posts is until August 21, 2012 at 5:)) p.m.

Photo Credits:

Wikipedia. (2012). President Aquino. Retrieved August 2012, from Wikipedia: http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talaksan:Presidentelectaquino.jpg

Wikipedia. (2012). PH Pres Magsaysay. Retrieved August 2012, from Wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/tl/0/08/Ph_pres_magsaysay.jpg

Wikipedia. (2012). Ferdinand Marcos. Retrieved August 2012, from Wikipedia: http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talaksan:Ferdinand_Marcos.JPEG