Noynoy is People Power

NoyNoy Aquino kickoff poster (Picture from Noynoy Facebook page)

In the Philippines today, there are two ‘political’ trends that are occurring.

The first concerns the elite, those in power, with wealth and contacts, or those with access to these three resources.

The second concerns civil society. Civil society encompasses, you and me, us, and those not part of the State or government. It includes those working to change conditions in the country. So, volunteers, activists, priests, teachers, NGOs, people’s organizations, feminists, environmentalists, artists, community organizers, scientists, media, and so on are part of civil society. When they band together and struggle for something be it housing, environment, human rights, or employment, they become a social movement of some sort.

As everyone knows, the elite control the resources of the country. They shape the laws of the land because they are in Congress and in government. They can influence policies and have access to government incentives, subsidies, and assistance to business, their business. Their ownership of land is significant. Importantly, they can influence, if not access, the coercive power of the State, which are the police and military. Hence, we have the “wangwang” phenomenon and the private armies who use military-owned equipment and ammunition or use government-organized civilian militia. The elite, who constitute 10% of the population, control at least one third of the economy.

While the elite share the same elements of power, wealth, education, and culture; they are not a united sector. They actually compete with one another for power and the spoils of power. Thus, the elections of 2010 is a competition for power of those who can afford to run for political office. Alliances are being reshaped. It is not surprising that candidates for the presidency all the way down to mayor are from the elite.

This is both a crisis and an opportunity.

Civil society, on the other hand, has a long track record in the country. Their earliest manifestations were in the anti-colonial struggle. Agrarian unrest and poverty also led to social movements in these sectors. During the Marcos regime, NGOs defending human rights and civil liberties, addressing the debilitating effects of poverty and displacement, grew in number, scope, and magnitude. After Marcos, NGOs continued to proliferate and be active in many different activities. Thus, the Philippines has become a regional center of NGO activity.

The proliferation of NGOs results from; (a) societal issues or problems that are being contested and/or tackled by various groups or sectors in society, and, (b) the withdrawal or lack of services and assistance by the government (State) because it doesn’t have the resources, skills, manpower, and political will to provide these. The market or private sector isn't interested as well. Hence, there are NGOs working on homelessness, urban poverty, agrarian reform, environmental issues, overseas workers’ plight, and so on.

Volunteers at the Gawad Kalinga ALL85 Village. The shanties will be eventually transformed into colorful, clean, peaceful homes such as the one partly seen on the left.

The significant characteristic of social movements, NGOs, and civil society is that in their activities, they are pursuing a vision, a mission, a goal, and value system. Think Gawad Kalinga with it’s; “No more slums, no more violence, no more poverty” motto.

Because of these two social forces of society and the political-economic-social situation, the Philippines is currently in a situation that social scientist Mary Racelis calls a vibrant democracy amidst widespread poverty and inequality.

Democracy will be hard to maintain if there is too much poverty and inequality. Who of the Presidential candidates are working to address poverty and inequality? Who of the candidates, all of whom come from the elite class, are willing to care, share, and reduce their “power” for the benefit of the poor, the weak, and vulnerable?

Lastly, how will they go about it?

Based on the above, Noynoy Aquino seems the desirable candidate because:

• As we celebrate People Power this week, Noynoy is the living embodiment of it. Let no one undermine the legacy of his parents. Noynoy has lived, read, heard, experienced, internalized, practices, and supports People Power. People Power is about civil society standing up to political repression and widespread graft and corruption;

Ninoy's letter to Noynoy-page1

Ninoy's letter to Noynoy-page2

Ninoy's letter to Noynoy-page 3

• People Power is a movement for reform. Noynoy’s mother, Cory Aquino, successfully restored the first part of reform, which is the restoration of democracy and a peaceful turn-over of political power. She did this despite numerous coup d’états, disasters (natural phenomena and man-made), and the regrouping and cooptation of the elite class on power and wealth. A generation later, it is Noynoy’s task to continue the reform movement;

• People Power as a reform movement is about changing institutions for the better. This means making government, the private sector, organizations, and even citizens more responsible, accountable, democratic, in other words, more ethical. By being more ethical, it is hoped that various institutions become vehicles for human and national development. Afterall, as many have noted, with freedom comes responsibility;

• Civil society, social movement, NGOs, and the like will continue to be active amidst so much poverty, inequality, and prevailing environment of graft and corruption. Civil society is a counter force to irresponsible government and to some sectors of the elite without conscience. The candidate then that supports civil society should be supported as part of the reform movement;

• With reform, comes the unleashing of the people’s creativity and innovation. Business and industry’s costs for doing business are reduced, thereby spurring investment and expansion. The diaspora of the best and brightest decreases and they can come home to their families and contribute to the country’s development. Reform is about moral regeneration and innovation.

• Noynoy is the candidate of choice because he supports a reform-of-institutions movement. Questions about his program of government and competence are moot. He already has a platform of government (like the other candidates) and his reform movement bespeaks transformational leadership not transactional politics.

• Lastly, even if he disappoints as a President, the reform movement as well as civil society will continue to prosper under his administration.

Expect Gawad Kalinga activities and like organizations to become even more active during a Noynoy Aquino presidency.

Noynoy is People Power.

The GK Way

Gawad Kalinga photoset

Last March 17 - 21, 2009, during Spring Break, I drove to Santa Fe, New Mexico to speak at a two part- panel I organized for the Society of Applied Anthropology (SFAA) annual conference. This year’s conference theme was entitled: Global Challenge, Local Action: Ethical Engagement, Partnerships, and Practice. My panel, on the other hand, was entitled: The Possibilities of Doing Good, Social Movements in an age of Neoliberalism. My panel sought to discuss how social change can be pursued sustainably. We were attracted to the perspective of political scientist Karol Soltan looked at social changes as large scale, requiring either revolution or extensive institutional reform, have consequences that are pervasive in society, and have long term effects. My fellow panelists presented on a number of social movements worldwide, from Mexico to Italy to my own presentation on Gawad Kalinga. All noted that working with the bottom of the pyramid and/or the poorest of the poor enabled social change. Many of these have been replicated elsewhere and are “scalable” globally.

When we think of social movements, environmental, nuclear, civil rights, peace, feminist, pro-life, and gun-rights movements quickly come to mind. Common to these groups are a penchant to protest or advocate for their respective causes. They mass mobilize, communicate their message, and seek resources to push their agenda. Lastly, they confront either the state or prevailing cultural codes in the hope of engendering change. Social movements in this sense operate in a conflict environment.

Civil society in America is undoubtedly tied to the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville’s (1835) writings on American democracy and civil society. He highlighted the check and balance role played by civil society in ensuring that power does not centralize toward the state. Traveling across the United States, he cited several examples of how diverse civic, professional, religious, secular, and ordinary groups of citizens engage in varied activities to promote democracy, transparency and accountability, public commerce, public safety, morality, and so on. He contrasted what he observed in America with France’s ancient regime, which failed to channel social pressures and dissent into institutions of politics and social justice designed to address these issues. Tocqueville emphasized the necessity of civil society as a countervailing force to despotism and state’s tendency to centralize power and undermine democracy.

Modernization theorists in the 1950 and 1960s built on Tocqueville’s writings to reiterate the importance of civil society especially in mediating social conflicts brought about social change, economic development, socio-economic mobilization, and political competition. In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, resistance to dictators and authoritarian rule, civil and human rights, as well as environmental, feminist, and cultural issues reignited interest in civil society, praxis, social movements. Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa were arenas of contention as U.S-backed dictatorships as well as communist-states crumbled amidst poverty, inflation, and the weight of their respective despotism. In Asia, the Philippines is one of the first countries that mobilized people power in the pursuit of democracy and governance.

Gawad Kalinga is different in that it seeks to present another side of social movements.



Simply, GK seeks to solve societal problems. While some GK advocates and volunteers may still be involved in protest and advocacy personally, GK activities are primarily focused on problem solving, capacity building, and empowerment. GK even works with those others would consider adversaries to solve problems of poverty, lack of social services, urban blight, environmental degradation, social exclusion, and lack of public education facilities, among others. They will agree to disagree so that urgent problems can be addressed.

From the very home they repaired and the very first they built in Bagong Silang, Kalookan City, there are now up to 2,000 GK communities in various stages of development all over the country. GK continues to replicate and scale up because of the selflessness of the CFC core of volunteers and partnerships with the national government, over 300 mayors, over a 100 corporations, over 150 schools and universities, the Filipino diaspora and their foreign friends, the tri-media, and on-line communities. GK has entered Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Cambodia, India and has Africa in its eyesight. GK has established a decentralized GK Builders Institute (GKBI) nestled in various universities to “converge” their organizational and technical expertise at the most local level—the GK village. This is the hoped for melding of the ‘science and spirit’ of community development.

What is enabling GK’s success? From a social movement perspective, it is passion that drives the movement. In GK, it is passion shared by many who are willing to sacrifice or in GK’s case, padugo. Padugo enables initial success as when GK build the first communities with its resources. Padugo builds character, provides leeway for experimentation and recoverable failure, and importantly, generates credibility. Credibility borne out of padugo attracts partners. Once partnerships reach a critical mass the movement snowballs. It is then nurtured by creativity and innovation in its organizational and mobilization aspects. Gawad Kalinga, at its essence, has always been a movement based on holistic human development that is being upscaled.

What happened to politics and governance? What happened to fighting corruption, which is endemic in the Philippines, some would say? Our answer is: does politics need to be verbalized? Are conflict and confrontation the only tactics and strategies available? How about engagement? How about leading by example, by padugo? How about tapping our cultural values of bayani, bayanihan, and pagbabalik-loob to spur change, reform, and nation building? Heroism especially by martyrdom may spur a revolution, but making the revolution a success needs the heroism of those alive and working day after day at social change.

Thus, in Gawad Kalinga’s perspective, fundamental change in society is possible by making the poor our partners in development. Only when they can provide for themselves and their families; only when they can live in dignity and have their “pagkatao” back, can they participate meaningfully in democracy and make informed choices on national development. The model of what is now known as Gawad Kalinga had started with home building. Providing homes that were comfortable and secure (tenancy-wise) enabled families to save, invest, regain their dignity, and rebuild their lives. From the few homes that they fixed, the results were dramatic. Yet these youth and their families struggled to renew themselves in a slum community. The scale of renewal needed to be enlarged. Stable families could build stable communities.

GK facilitates this process by rebuilding poor communities, make available housing, health and nutrition, education, values transformation, organization at the community level, and productivity and livelihood. This is transformation that is comprehensive and holistic. When people are not hungry and sick, then they can vote in the right politicians or they can demand reform. Political participation requires resources, time, and effort. Citizens must be able to “afford it.” Gawad Kalinga fits into what the late Jesuit historian, Horacio dela Costa outlined for Philippine development. The Filipino people must do three things, namely: (a) build and strengthen communities; (b) link the communities with common goals-ideally national goals; and, (c) recapture the bureaucracy.

I have a particular affinity for what some call the soft aspects of development, the culture so to speak. The anthropologist Oscar Lewis (1959) spoke of a culture of poverty, while James Fallows (1987) spoke of the Philippine’s damaged culture. But a clearer understanding and appreciation of the potentialities of the poor, their resilience, their inner strength, despite what Dominican priest and anthropologist Miguel Rolland said was the “absurdity and impossibility of their situation and existence” holds many lessons for us. It is a window to the resilience of the poor and our own culture. It is also the basis for nation building. Are the patterns emerging for a truly global model of human development and nation building that is a synthesis of family and faith-based human development complemented by capacity building and attention to the needs and aspirations of the household?

U.S. Ambassador Kristie Kenney at GK BASECO with GK kids learning ESCRIMA/KALI

A good society has shared traits that promote the common good. Human liberty, at its core, is about freedom and responsibility. Responsibility implies social interaction and community. Community development denotes collective desire, want, and action to change a political-economic and social situation deemed unjust and unsatisfactory. Social movements are dynamic form of collective action. Their emergence result from the intermingling of individual experience and motivation, framing of the issues and societal structure that give rise to opportunities for mobilization. A complementary rather than competitive approach incorporates the various strands of social movement theorizing. Social movements generate mechanisms for articulating and asserting collective interests that are unmet by established institutions such as political parties, the bureaucracy, and the market. Unlike established institutions, social movements are porous, have high structural flexibility, are adaptive, have broad repertoire of actions including disruptive tactics. It is less bound by the organizational logic. As Melucci (1984:830) noted, “the movement is the message.”

The literature on engendering change and community development, from anthropology to sociology, social psychology, and social economics, among others, call for a values-based paradigm that is creative, transparent, engaging, and participatory. In other words, revolutionary/ disruptive change is really through culture work that is creative, positive, optimistic, and charismatic. The search is for a transformational social movement. In the GK model, we can see discern this “culture work”

The Gawad Kalinga model points to the burgeoning anthropological study of “successful outcomes of civically engaged communities” as the anthropologist David Stoll (2002) noted. Gawad Kalinga shows the inherent value of convergence, of not only individuals, organizations, and communities, but that of the art, science, system, and faith of community development and nation building.

GK’s Boy Montelibano articulates this best when he says that GK is successful when the “GK Way” of community and town development is adopted by communities and cities. The transformation of Bagong Silang, Kalookan and the quest of Taguig to become a “Designer City” are concrete examples of the “GK Way.”

Barack Obama on the cusp of history

Historic duo

With less than two days left before the elections for the 44th president of the United States, Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden are about to enter a new and historic era for the country. What does their election mean to Americans in general and Fil-Americans and Filipinos as well as the rest of the world in particular?

First, to reiterate what many have already written, this campaign period has been marked by a number of firsts and of new ways of doing things. The first person of color, of humble beginnings, but blessed with a recipe of success- a loving family, excellent education, able mentors, and a cultural sophistication honed by travel, training, and trials, is about to become president of the most powerful nation in the world. If not him, it could have been the first woman president.

On the other hand, the incumbent political party nominated a team that was not only ill-qualified, but wracked by controversy, blunder, and internal wrangling. All these, as the pundits say, reflect on the competence and temperament of the candidate.

Second, the Obama campaign made a radical break with traditional campaign strategies and tactics in three fundamental ways. The first is that true to his community organizing background, Obama understood the potential and power of social movements to win elections. He melded a competently directed and well-funded campaign with a decentralized and ground up election movement powered by diverse, creative, and energized people and organizations that were willing to take initiative, sacrifice, and bleed for the Obama cause.

www.fivthirtyeight.com election projection as of Nov. 2, 2008

This successful melding of a broad based election movement with competent campaign strategies was enabled by the wholehearted adoption of Web 2.0 as I wrote previously. Think 3.1 million volunteer supporters, 25,000 Obama bloggers, and a campaign kitty of $600M.

Lastly, Obama’s campaign message of hope and change anchored by specific proposals indicate his capability and competence to lead the country. McCain’s platform was clearly deficient and would most likely lead to further economic decline, continuing wars, and environmental degradation. Americans are not a stupid people.

Because Obama mobilized a movement in this election, he has in the process energized diverse sectors ranging from the youth, ethnic groups, women’s groups, environmentalists, scientists, activists, and the previously apolitical, among others. The challenge now is to sustain this political enthusiasm and energy and channel it, as activists would say, into initiatives on reform and restructuring.

The backdrop though of this historic election is an economic and financial meltdown wrought by a generation of neoliberal economic and social policies that weakened oversight and excessively deregulated; implemented monetary and tax policies that benefited vested interests; underinvested in public education, social services, and infrastructure; exploited the environment, and ventured into costly and illegitimate invasions. If the course is not changed, the very future of the USA may be irretrievably compromised.

The challenges facing Obama on day one are both multifaceted as they are difficult. Thus, there are huge expectations on Obama to initiate not only radical reform, but formulate new and innovative ways of doing things. Because reform and restructuring are on the agenda, this presents opportunities for Fil-Ams to participate. One, because the Obama-for-President movement was broad based in terms of sectors supporting him, and with Obama himself being of mixed color, his election sets the emotional tone of the country.

That emotional tone is a positive one of hope and genuine change. As he has repeatedly stated, America is a land of opportunity. With a loving and supportive family, access to good education, and public services, anyone can reach their potential. It is about equalizing opportunities, regardless of skin color or class. Following Benjamin Pimentel’s article, acceptance in white America need not be based on bashing Blacks anymore.

The change part, as others have noted, is that America has shown time and again that it can correct its mistakes and even engage in cathartic change. America launched the Washington Consensus of neoliberal economic and social policies that proved disastrous for developing countries. It has now returned home and the damage is unimaginable. Obama will have an historic opportunity to right the excesses of market fundamentalism, international unilateralism, crony capitalism, and U.S. contribution to global warming. If successful, he will steer America into a new era replete with a peace dividend and new technological breakthroughs in alternative energy and environmental technologies and services. Those who deeply understand these changes are in a position to benefit from these currents of change.

Scott Hansen's Progress poster

An insightful analysis by someone who wishes to remain anonymous noted that Obama will lead the nation at a time of intense change. His policies and actions will fundamentally remake the institutions that shape the economy, social relations, politics, foreign policy, environmental management, science and technology, among others. It is Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift of, as he wrote, from the “Old guard” that is tired and unimaginative and its replacement by the “Emergent New” generation. I put emphasis, just as he does, on “emergent” because it is evolutionary as it is contingent. There is latent energy that desires release, development, and effervescence. Obama has correctly sensed this. A McCain presidency according to him would only limit the “Emergent New” generation.

I have told others that as I look at the Obama election movement through the lens of the Gawad Kalinga social movement, the parallels are uncannily similar. Both share a message of hope, change, and healing of relationships. Both subsume conflict in favor of looking for common ground to work out problems. Thus, both are inclusive. Both prioritize the health of families, of communities, of the environment. Both seek to remake society in fundamental ways. It is about revolution, but a revolution not of the fighting kind that McCain espouses. Gawad Kalinga’s revolution is about healing relationships between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, among a family members and neighbors. Obama’s revolution is built on opportunities for all. Both have tapped into the energy and resources of civil society. They have the support of the youth who are color blind, the feminists, the laborers, the environmentalists, the scientists, heck, even plumbers!

Lastly, both have leveraged Web 2.0 and the creativity of all. Both have been skillful and artful in tapping into the political opportunities that presented itself, strategically accessed and utilized resources, and framed their message and platform in ways that attracted supporters and kept them for the long haul. Future elections will be run on a framework of social movements. I hope it will be of the genuine kind.

A Replication Guide for Building LGU-Initiated Gawad Kalinga Communities, 2005 Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program

The Obama and Gawad Kalinga movement reflect changes in society in general. Because of persistent widespread inequality and poverty, as well as the environmental challenges, movements of poverty alleviation, health, sustainability, and social inclusion are present worldwide. The need for creativity and innovation in addressing these challenges has attracted some of the best and brightest to these movements. It will come as no surprise why social entrepreneurs are supporters of Obama and of Gawad Kalinga.

The future is exciting and challenging for Americans. The world looks forward to the new stage the United States of America will be performing on.

What will the contribution of FilAms be?

Anthropology of Relevance

Anthropology of Relevance

Recently in an egroup that I am part of that discusses environment, culture, and geopolitical issues, there was a spirited exchange on the relevance of anthropology and anthropologists in these exciting times. Wading through the verbal firestorm, I found many insights, which will help me in my current dissertation work. I would like to explore other aspects though of the ongoing conversation.

The first is that I seem to notice a collective angst on what anthropology’s status and role are at present. What is it’s contribution to the GES (global environmental sustainability) and gepolitical debates in the macro sense? Specifically, are anthropologists being read, listened to, and recognized especially by decision makers? Does their work have impact in the local and in the global settings? Should anthropologists even care if their work has impact? The angst is there because of global warming and the continuing Iraq debacle, among others. Anthropologists long knew what was wrong and what should be done, but why were our voices not heard? Our advice not heeded? The prophet was not recognized in his hometown, so what now?

Might the issue have to do with scale? The GES and Iraq occupation have global consequences but anthropologist’s work is generally site specific. Our findings and insights may improve our understanding of human culture, but what next? Who will bridge the gap of theory to practice for the WORLD to use? Do we let others do it or do we, ourselves, complete the “supply chain”? A few others cited many anthropologists doing terrific, groundbreaking work theoretically and in the applied setting. Shouldn’t the challenge then be scaling up and replication if these works posit best practices the world can benefit from?

My research focuses on a faith-based movement in the Philippines known as Gawad Kalinga meaning “to give care”. It aims to build 700,000 homes, in 7,000 communities, in 7 years or the GK777 movement. In Gawad Kalinga, the thesis is that poverty is behavioral not economic. Poverty results from a breakdown of relationships among family members, between neighbors, between social classes, and within society. Thus, the rich need to become better stewards of their resources, talents, and time. The poor need to regain their dignity, hope, and dreams, and to build capacities. Both can do so by helping each other, working together, and building partnerships.

Slum home in Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines

Gawad Kalinga housing
Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines

In practical terms poverty (and the resulting environmental crisis) can be addressed through sharing of time and resources, MASSIVE mobilization of partners and "padugo"- "bleeding for the cause" and modeling "patriotism in action". Since then, it has built over 20,000 homes in 1,420 communities for the poor and initiated activities in three other countries, with intentions of going global. GK claims their "transformed" communities are peace and faith zones, environmentally healthy, empowered, and productive through initiatives on shelter, youth development, health, food, livelihood, and values formation. GK claims their sites are “non-sectarian, multi-sectoral, non-partisan and non-discriminatory”. Each volunteer is a hero (bayani) to one another, which leads to community-wide assistance (bayanihan). Replicated over time sand space, bayanihan then stimulates nation (bayan) building. GK’s success resulted in the GK Executive Director/Founder and the organization winning the 2006 Ramon Magsaysay (Asian Nobel prize) awards for individual and organizational community leadership and other similar awards. They have gotten so much support from the private and public sectors that other cause oriented groups and aid agencies have been put on notice: deliver or lose support.

By the way, they are also currently recruiting another one million volunteers worldwide and establishing volunteer research institutes in any university willing to partner up with them. They are becoming viral.

The movement is anchored on faith, culture work, and partnerships. Importantly, it is massive in scale (geographically) and is transformative in intention.What can be more cultural (for research and applied work) than social engineering initiatives such as this?

The implication for anthropologists today is that social movements like Gawad Kalinga or MoveOn, social networking initiatives such as MySpace and FaceBook, faith-based movements or even the Christian Right is that their outlook is global. Their actions are cheekily in the pursuit of some form of “global domination”. Globalization is not only about commerce, but fundamentally cultural. The GES, geopolitics, and poverty are both local and global.

How do anthropology and anthropologists adapt to a shrinking and globalizing world vis-à-vis our research and our work?

To me it isn’t relevance per se. All work is relevant if you find inspiration in it. But if we want others to consider us relevant, then we have to look at reality.

And the reality is: events of concern to anthropologists are global in dimension. Our work and research must then have scientific rigor, practical application, and global insight.

P.S.

I interviewed a British-Nigerian Catholic priest working in the Manila slums. One of his favorite sayings in approximate words is:

“I like the way I am doing things better than the way you aren’t doing anything at all”