I just read the article Ideals to possibilities. The word compromise was used 9 times (mas o menos). I find that unusual for a fairly short essay, one in which an unflinching belief in the integrity and good intentions of President Aquino is guilelessly expressed. To Sunday night folks, an ode of remembrance: Compromise is getting what you did NOT really want. Why make it sound like it is such a good thing? The article implies that coalition politics is based on principled compromise. Wrong. Coalition politics is, at the very least, agonistic. It may also be (or turn into) an antagonistic historical bloc, composed of the national-popular (classes and sectors) struggling against a narrow target. Thats how it has been in every coalition that combined tactics and strategies for both reform and revolution. To make compromise sound like it is the highest virtue to be embraced by every advocate of coalition politics is reactionary and dumb. An odious point was also made about a persons reason for liking Akbayan because of the provisional quality of its ‘correctness. All truth is provisional. This makes correctness contingent upon truths provisionality. To make it appear like Akbayans superiority lies in its provisional approach to correctness is not only an upfront to the history and enterprise of knowledge-production, it also smacks of cerebral incontinence, I hate to tell you. Lastly, the suggested binarism between a protest party (Akbayan before) and a reform-oriented party working in...government (Akbayan now) is false.
Posted on: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 16:23:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015