Of course, Sec. Bert Gonzales is harassing Bayan Muna. It's only fair. Sec.Gonzales' party, the PDSP could not get past the 2 percent threshold in the 2001 party list election. The government coalition, People Power Coalition, helped Bayan Muna top that election. To express its gratitude, Bayan Muna attacked the Arroyo administration on every conceivable issue for the next three years.
It is also Sec. Gonzales' job as national security adviser. The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New Peoples' Army (NPA) and its political fronts constitute the single biggest threat to Philippine national security. The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the police have stepped up tactical operations against the NPA. Sec.Gonzales needs to step up the fight on the political front.
Sec. Raul Roco's and Sen. Joker Arroyo's defense of Bayan Muna and its allied parties tells only part of the story. Yes, the repeal of the anti-subversion law makes the espousal of communism legal. So, why doesn't Satur Ocampo openly espouse communism? Why do Bayan Muna leaders vehemently deny a connection to the CPP? Because the CPP has an NPA, that's why. No law can ever make armed struggle legal.
Maybe Sec.Gonzales could have made himself clearer. He wants the six parties he identifies as CPP fronts disqualified from participating in the 2004 party list elections not because they espouse communism but because they are linked to an armed group. Armed goons, whether of the Right or the Left, do serious damage to the integrity of the electoral process. We have enough problems with our elections as it is without adding fear of physical harm as a major determinant of election results.
Neither Satur Ocampo nor other spokespersons of the six parties deny a political connection with the CPP. What they deny is an organizational connection with the NPA. Admitting that would automatically disqualify them from participating in elections. But underground groups do not publicly announce their organizational connections. Sec.Gonzales will have difficulty getting the Comelec to find sufficient legal grounds to disqualify the six parties.
In the end, the issue is political, not legal. When an Abanse Pinay organizer in Panay, or an Akbayan municipal councilor in Albay are told to stop campaigning in NPA controlled barangays because these barangays are 'reserved' for Bayan Muna or Anak Pawis, they don't stop to ask if this is legal before they get scared. If they think NPA threats give unfair advantage to the Bayan Muna because neither Abanse Pinay nor Akbayan have armies, should we blame them if they understand Sec.Gonzales' move?
It would be good if Satur Ocampo would openly espouse communism. Akbayan and Bayan Muna's other competitors could then debate them, - could question the utility of an ideology that has been 'reaffirmed' only by those who refuse to leave the past. That would be fair competition. But competing with a legal, open party that is supported by an army, by the New People's Army is unfair. Satur Ocampo can deny an organizational connection, but there is more than enough evidence of NPA support for the Bayan Muna.
Curiously, Satur Ocampo argues against Sec.Gonzales by saying he violates the government policy of encouraging Bayan Muna and other national democratic parties to participate in elections in order to encourage the CPP to abandon armed struggle. By inference, he admits a connection between Bayan Muna and the NPA. But did government support of Bayan Muna in the 2001 elections move the CPP any closer to abandoning armed struggle?
On the contrary, the success of Bayan Muna in 2001 actually helped to advance armed struggle. After virtually dismantling its NGOs and mass organizations during the 'rectification' campaign of the 1990s, the CPP got back into the center of open political contestation only in the midst of the anti-Estrada campaign in 2000. It was after EDSA 2 that Bayan Muna was created. It has been the most visible open national democratic organization in the last three years.
Open legal progressive parties such as Akbayan are more than happy to
compete with national democratic parties in elections. But national
democratic parties cannot have it both ways, be legal and illegal (because
armed) at the same time. Threats of violence to intimidate competitors and
to raise campaign funds through Permit to Campaign fees distort electoral
competition. National democratic parties have to make up their minds. If
they want both, they should not complain if people denounce their unfair
tactics.
