초록 열기/닫기 버튼
More than two decades after the downfall of the Marcos dictatorship, Philippine social movements continue to confront the problems associated with three major players of the martial law era: the cronies, who were the friends and relatives of President Ferdinand Marcos; the military, which provided for the repression and oppression of any form of dissidence; and the technocracy, who with the support of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, perpetuated economic policies which furthered the underdevelopment of the country. The only difference is that now social movements have to deal with these nmeses to the democratization process under an “illiberal” democracy with the façade of liberal democratic institutions, or procedural democracy, but in reality a society which is characterized by the continuing wide gap between the rich and the poor and the hinered participation of the majority. An added dimension is the advent of neo‐liberalism as expressed through rapid globalization witnessing an increasing gap between rich and poor countries and between the rich and poor in developing societies like the Philippines. My paper, therefore, highlights the specific challenges posed by these three major obstacles to the democratization process and examines the manner in which Philippine social movements have confronted them. Their successes and limitations in their endeavors will also be discussed. For as long as these three legs of cronyism/corruption, military/human rights abuses and technocracy/neoliberal policies are not chopped off, Philippine social movements will continue to confront these head on as they did during the dark days of the dictatorship.
More than two decades after the downfall of the Marcos dictatorship, Philippine social movements continue to confront the problems associated with three major players of the martial law era: the cronies, who were the friends and relatives of President Ferdinand Marcos; the military, which provided for the repression and oppression of any form of dissidence; and the technocracy, who with the support of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, perpetuated economic policies which furthered the underdevelopment of the country. The only difference is that now social movements have to deal with these nmeses to the democratization process under an “illiberal” democracy with the façade of liberal democratic institutions, or procedural democracy, but in reality a society which is characterized by the continuing wide gap between the rich and the poor and the hinered participation of the majority. An added dimension is the advent of neo‐liberalism as expressed through rapid globalization witnessing an increasing gap between rich and poor countries and between the rich and poor in developing societies like the Philippines. My paper, therefore, highlights the specific challenges posed by these three major obstacles to the democratization process and examines the manner in which Philippine social movements have confronted them. Their successes and limitations in their endeavors will also be discussed. For as long as these three legs of cronyism/corruption, military/human rights abuses and technocracy/neoliberal policies are not chopped off, Philippine social movements will continue to confront these head on as they did during the dark days of the dictatorship.
마르코스 독재의 몰락이후 지난 20여 년 동안 필리핀의 사회운동은 계엄령 시대의 주요한 3대 집단-정치적 연고자들, 군인들, 기술관료들-과 연관된 문제들과 직면해왔다. 앞서 독재시대와의 유일한 차이라면, 그것은 사회운동진영이 이러한 민주화 과정의 적들을 자유민주주의 제도 또는 절차 민주주의의 외관을 가진 “비자유주의적” 민주주의의 이름 아래에서 다루고 있다는 점이다. 하지만 실제는 지속되고 있는 부자와 빈자의 넓은 편차와 대다수 국민의 지체된 참여에 의해서 특징된다. 여기에 새롭게 추가된 측면은 부국과 빈국의 격차와 필리핀과 같은 개발도상국의 부자와 빈자의 격차가 증가함을 목격하고 있는 급격한 세계화 속에서 신자유주의의 도래라고 할 수 있다. 이 논문은, 민주화 과정에 주요한 장애물로 등장하는 이러한 세 집단에 의해서 배치된 특화된 도전들을 부각하고, 필리핀의 사회운동 진영이 그들을 상대하고 있는 방식들을 조사한다. 사회운동진영의 노력 속에 드러나는 성공들과 한계점을 논의할 것이다. 연고주의/부패, 군대/인권남용, 기술관료/신자유주의 정책들이 퇴출되지 않는 한, 필리핀의 사회운동은 어두운 독재시대 동안 그러했던 것처럼 이들과 계속적으로 마주서야 할 것이다.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
필리핀 사회운동, 계엄령시대, 연고주의, 부패, 반부패운동, 군대의 정치화, 신자유주의
