Filipino Liberals

By Ronald Meinardus

In the political dictionary of our times, hardly any other word is as controversial as the term “liberal.” While for many liberalism has only positive connotations, others see it as a curse. For critics, “liberal” has become a political four-letter word.

The dichotomy is particularly evident on the other side of the Pacific where a powerful conservative phalanx has denigrated liberals with all sorts of negative epithets such as immoral, irresponsible, and foremost, unpatriotic. The Philippines, very fortunately, is different in this regard. For the average Filipinos, liberalism has a positive resonance. They associate it with triumphant phases in their history such as the anti-colonial struggles or a fight against domestic tyrants. Also in the sphere of partisan politics, a political party baring the liberal brand has been around for no less than six decades making valuable contributions to freedom and democracy.

The mere fact that the Liberal Party of the Philippines (LP) has managed to stay vibrant after so many years is an achievement in itself. The political culture of the Philippines does not favor partisan continuity. To the contrary, if you look around you will find many political parties that exist only on paper and in election times. Political parties with a tradition, let alone a program and a political identity, are the great exception.

Over the past weekend Filipino Liberals celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Liberal Party with a series of festive and also educative and informative activities in the capital as well as in numerous other parts of the country. Politically, the timing of the anniversary was all but ideal. It is no secret, the Liberal Party is divided, once more divided, hasten to add those who know the turbulent history of this political group. It is only appropriate that LP inaugurated a historical exhibition depicting in photos and documents six decades of the party’s history. Not all panels communicate the message of a solid and unified political force.

Seen in a historical perspective, the party’s historians assert, today’s split between those supporting the administration and those wanting the president out should not be dramatized. On the other hand, one should assume the schism to continue as long as the root cause, the controversy regarding the president’s legitimacy, persists.

As on various occasions in the past, today, once more, two opposing concepts of politics are evident among the leaders of organized Philippine liberalism: the politics of conscience versus the politics of convenience. On the one hand, Liberals are proud of their progressive values and concepts; upholding them is a conscientious imperative. At the same time, Liberals tend to be pragmatists; they know that in order to shape meaningful reforms they have to work within the system and within the parameters of the law.

The Philippine political context includes features and mechanisms not conducive to clean and transparent governance. Confronted with the dilemma of conscience and convenience, not all Liberals adopt the same standard. Some prefer to stay in power arguing that their presence allows them to influence developments in a positive direction. Others have chosen to quit arguing that staying on in what they perceive as an illegitimate structure would signify collusion.

In abstract terms, this is the situation of organized Liberals today – a split between two camps with diametrically differing views on the dominant issue of domestic politics.

It is typical for Filipino Liberals (and seen historically one important explanation for the longevity of their party) that even in times of internal strife, they do not question the concept of one unified political force. Once more, this became apparent also in the past few days of anniversary celebrations. “United, there is little we cannot do; divided, there is little we can do”, said LP President Senator Franklin Drilon, expressing the view of many members and followers.

Whatever the outcome of the present intra-party wrangling, Philippine Liberals will only achieve genuine and lasting unity after they have settled in a democratic manner the fundamental issue of pragmatic versus principled politics. Says Mario Taguiwalo, the president of the National Institute for Policy Studies, the liberal think tank of the Philippines: “Working on the correct balance between the demands of power and fulfilling the calling of principles is going to be the main issue in defining the future character of the Liberal Party.”

This is a daunting task, one may add, but anything else could be perceived as an empty compromise.

Dr. Ronald Meinardus was the former Resident Representative of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in the Philippines and will leave Manila late September for a new posting in the Middle East. He writes a blog at www.myliberaltimes.com