COMMUNITARIAN DEMOCRACY A Discourse in Progress

A KAALAGAD COMMUNITY DISCUSSION PAPER Version 1, EASTER 2003

Convened by a shared faith in Jesus Christ, Kaalagad Katipunang Kristiyano seeks to serve the poor as an ecumenical and cross-cultural community. By ‘community’ we mean the settlement of all creation in a communitarian democracy. By ‘communitarian democracy’ we mean the just and generous covenant among entities with diverse personal-cum-collective political interests. By ‘political interests’ we mean the power relations and socio-cultural orientations that govern the four domains of Ecology, Genders, Economy and Beliefs-systems - viewed from a historical perspective. By ‘historical perspective’ we mean the integral and ambivalent evolutions of anthropocentrism vis-a-vis a creationist ecosophy, patriarchy vis-a-vis mutuality, capitalism vis-a-vis communitarian economics, and unilateralism vis-a-vis pluralism - or collectively, Hierarchism vis-a-vis Communitarianism. And by ‘communitarianism’ Kaalagad prefers the grace of communion over the yokes of dominion.

Convened by a Shared Faith in Christ

Towards the end of Year 2000, at the height of the Estrada crisis, a few dozen Christians gathered together to once again consider the implications of their Christian convictions on their social calling as followers of Jesus and as human beings. We say ‘once again’ because it was not a new thing to them. To many, it was a time for retrospection and reflection, a moment of thanksgiving for the rich experience and invaluable lessons gleaned from decades of militant activism, and a season for renewing and rekindling their resolve and excitement to persevere and persist in their journey with Christ by casting their lot with the poor and the disadvantaged.

The coming out of Kaalagad was a literal coming out in the streets to decry the excesses of the Estrada government in an indignation march that culminated in a vesper service at St. Joseph’s College in Quezon City on December 5, 2000.

Kaalagad Katipunang Kristiyano

The name itself speaks of their long-cherished ideal of quiet humble service. KAALAGAD, short for ‘kapwa alagad’, is a fellowship of fellowservants. Its very logotype embodies Kaalagad’s ‘creed’. The antiquated font reflects the age-old universal values of wisdom, dignity and integrity. The taller letters K and D outline its political project as ‘Kapatiran at Demokrasya’ or communitarian democracy. The bar connecting the two letters is a dulang, the low table of tribal Filipinos (where disputes are settled and truces and pacts are forged) as well as a banqueting table of early Christians where the lowly are seated and most welcome, symbolizing Kaalagad’s commitment to justness, equality, dialogue and peace building. And underneath it, the letters forming the word AALAGA (to nurture) is a personal and communal pledge to a sensitizing humanizing culture.

Kaalagad calls itself ‘Katipunan’ hoping to live up to the good name of Filipino Christian revolutionary tradition, and as homage to the inspiring examples of those who came before it, notably Burgos, Gomez and Zamora, Hermano Pule, Gregorio Aglipay and Christian movements like Khi Ro, Ecumenical Forum for Church Response, Pentecost, Promotion of Church People’s Rights/Response, Kristiyanong Alyansa ng Makabayang Obrero, Kristiyanong Ugnayan para sa Sosyalismo/Sambayanan, Christians for National Liberation, and Basic Christian/Ecclesial Communities.

It is ‘Kristiyano’ and predicates itself as a ‘faith community’, albeit closely resembling a political mass organization of believers.

Ecumenical and Crosscultural Community

In the main, Christian churches are not exactly known for their enthusiasm in promoting and practicing interdenominational, much less interreligious dialogues. Given that, the composition of Kaalagad is one good news in the journal of Christian activism. Kaalagad is Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical. It is clergy and lay. And its fellowship is open to Muslims, Buddhists, other mainline religions and alternative spiritualities.

Settlement of All Creation

Community is understood by Kaalagad to be a gathering of diverse individual and collective beings bound together by common hopes and interests. We say ‘beings’ because a community includes all existences. Whether referred to as living or non-living, all of creation are interconnected in the web of energy and matter. And while it may be true that by grace and evolutionary consequence humans enjoy a decisive engineering advantage over the rest of the ecosystem, Kaalagad recognizes and holds sacred the integrity of all of creation. A community therefore is animated by humans, flora, fauna, riverines, lakes, forests, lands, subterrains, and atmospheres. Thus topographic changes and climatic cycles may be said to be valid and valuable historical manifestations just as are political economics and cultural development.

Communitarian Democracy

All ‘cracies’ (read ‘rule’ or ‘governance’) are propositions to deliver ‘the greatest good to the greatest number’. ‘Democracy’ goes one step further to say that the way to optimize the correlation between the greater good and the greater number is to let the greater number determine the greater good. Which should work very well for countries with populations of perhaps fifty to a hundred persons. Otherwise, one needs to adopt some system of representation when dealing with 75 million people such as there are in the Philippines. And since all governments claim to govern by the ‘mandate of the people’ and to represent their interests, practically all rulers call their nations democracies - from capitalist USA to communist DPRK. In much the same manner, their ‘anti-establishment’ counterparts contest the legitimacy of incumbent governments by likewise claiming the ‘truer mandate of the people’, and so on.

And whether through reforms within a constitutional framework or through an armed revolution, or some sort of combination of both, all national ‘liberation’ or ‘democratic’ or ‘people’s’ movements are ‘state-bound’. And rightly so, if we may add, since the establishments in question are state-sized establishments.

Applying the template on contemporary Philippine political spectrum, we may say: Whether constitutional democrats (traditional political parties and some sections of ‘civil society’), ‘right-wing’ democrats (RAM-SFP-YOU), ‘left-wing’ democrats (CPP-NPA-NDF, other underground formations, legal left and sections of civil society), or secessionist democrats (MILF, MNLF), all ascribe political primacy to the State. And while many profess a ‘socialist vision’ which necessarily requires a decentralized social model, their sights are ultimately trained at the State apparatus, as quite evident in their highly centralized and steeply hierarchic organizational designs, modus operandi, posturings, attitudes and party formations.

Communitarian democracy, on the other hand, locates the ‘greater good for the greater number’ ultimately and immediately at the community level. But while a neighborhood is a community, the barangay, the municipality, the province, the region and the whole country may also be called ‘communities’. That is why we say the ‘political orientation’ of Katipunang Kaalagad is ‘outward bound’ (community-bound) rather than ‘center-bound’ (state-bound). While all the others consider ‘basebuilding’ as a strategic step towards consolidating power at the State level, communitarian democrats are poised the other way, and regard ‘national struggles’ as strategic to building democratic communities. Their impact on the ‘quality of community life’ thus becomes the ultimate criterion for evaluating the significance of any and all political claims and presuppositions. And for a political or social initiative or ‘gain’ to be considered meaningful, it has to redound to a ‘communitarian good’ at the level and life size scale of Basic Democratic Communities.

And by BDC’s we go back to our proverbial country whose population is in the vicinity of fifty to a hundred persons! And we mean social organizations where policies and functionalities are formulated and practiced (and recalled if need be) in a day-by-day direct democracy. Consequently, Kaalagad’s historical framework is ‘non-linear’, meaning that the construction of its political project and social vision is both future and immediate. Thus, for instance, religious and ethnic discrimination, sexual harassment, child abuse, or waste management, along with unemployment and rural poverty, cannot and should not be made to wait until after some seizure of State power happens. At the same time, communitarian democracy recognizes the urgency of reordering big government to address those very same social ills more adequately and comprehensively.

Just and Generous Covenant

Kaalagad’s inventory of communitarian goods are bound by the twined strands of justice and generosity - the dynamic duo of relatedness. Kaalagad recognizes that the distinction is elusive and blurred since it is quite often impossible to pinpoint which of the two integrated realms pervades and prevails in a given predicament. But making the distinction is necessary and very crucial because it sharpens our focus and discernment as we take a closer look at the often fake faces of good intentions.

It is by making such distinction that we may neither applaud companies who sponsor religious activities and make a grand mockery of spirituality to mute their workers and cloak unfair labor practices, nor condone murder and summary killings whether in the name of national security or a people’s revolution; or closer to home, see through the evil facades of loving husbands who beat their wives, and generous parents who abuse their offspring. Justice can never be a justification for cruelty, nor love for oppression. Compassion may not be suspended in the mighty name of justice, nor justice in the good name of compassion.

Diverse Personal-cum-Collective Political Interests

On a more positive note, we are presented with more than one avenue of coming together. We may not be neighbors, yet we may produce goods together for our mutual satisfaction. And though we may not all work together in the same industry, we may still find delight in each other’s company as buddies and friends and intimates. Or better yet, we may make a lifelong run for it as peers and pairs at work and at play. Such is the blessing in disguise of diversity, for how can we enjoy one another if we were all exactly the same right down to our very speech and spine?

But it is also its own curse. It is our very diversity itself that entangle our conflicting diverse interests and mire us all in a mud pit of big and small tugs of wars as we subdue one another for position and survival. And at the heart of it all is the primeval issue of Power.

By ‘power’ we mean the ability to carry out a social agenda. And by ‘social agenda’ we mean the personal-cum-collective pursuit of personal-cum-collective priorities. We say ‘personal-cum-collective’ to emphasize how the ‘personal’ and the ‘collective’ feed on each other to serve each other’s symbiotic purposes. In other words, both the club and the recruit expect to benefit from the new member’s induction. It matters little whether the club is a church, the Lion’s Club, a communist party, or a conspiracy of ravens.

Individuals advance their interests through their associations, which in turn mimic the character and priorities of its individual members (or at least the influential ones). Again, as it is between justice and compassion, the boundaries between the personal and the collective are often hair-splittingly fine and fuzzy. But recognizing such distinction is quite important to those who are convinced that the grand rivalry between good and guile happens interactively in the personal and in the collective. Meaning that, for instance, in coming to terms with the difficult subject of power, a community will do well to exercise both collective as well as individual discipline.

Power Relations and Socio-Cultural Orientations

‘Political interest’ (or the drive to accumulate, consolidate and employ power) is expressed by many in the harsh language of rank, intimidation, blackmail, bribery and brute force (power relations). And yet, still others invoke it in the sensitive vernaculars of common courtesy, civility, customs, familial traditions and cultural identity (socio-cultural orientations). Mao found its fount from the barrel of a gun; Christ and Gandhi in truth; still others in genetics and nanotechnology; Yao Ming in length; and the Beatles in rock and roll. Whether it is a good thing to have and to hold may be highly suspect, but the hard reality is: powerful political interests dictate the terms of life and death on earth.

And at this juncture, quite frankly, Kaalagad is caught in a bind. It used to be that ‘empowerment’ was a second nature response of Christian activists when asked about their mission. But if it is also power that empowers the powerful to oppress the powerless, how do we manage power without becoming the very oppressor we are striving to overcome? Do we wage war against war to build peace?

Indeed Kaalagad has embarked on communitarian democracy as a discourse in progress. And unlike social or national democracy and other established political/religious movements, communitarian democracy is not a complete system. It has no loaded-and-cocked answers to many issues, like the issue of power and the nature of violence. In the manner of ideologies, certitude is certainly not one of Kaalagad’s strong points, and those looking for unshakable and infallible point-and-shoot truths are advised to look elsewhere. On the other hand, the very recognition of incompleteness affords those earnestly seeking a fresh understanding of shifting historical realities an open space for unchaperoned dialogue.

Domains of Ecology, Genders, Economy and Beliefs

But quandaries notwithstanding, Kaalagad is rather clear about two items. One: that there is not just one domain of contention in the world order. In fact, there are at least four. ‘Poles’ (we also call them) of ecology, genders, economics and belief-systems. It is recognized that many groups attend to a particular pole as a consequence of either or both their social analysis and competence. For instance, national democrats, as do most political blocs, emphasize the issue of ‘class’, that is, the domain of economics; feminist groups on gender; ‘zero waste’ environmentalists on ecology; and those working among indigenous peoples and artists in general on cultural diversity.

Quite understandably, there is a general tendency to regard one pole as the all-encompassing and decisive theater of struggle. And it is not uncommon to hear zealots blurt out phrases like ‘unless we first clean up the waste within ourselves’ or ‘not until we rid earth of all traces of patriarchy’ or ‘not one mote short of a classless society’ and so on, with matching apocalyptic finality. Which makes it rather necessary for Kaalagad to likewise underline the other item.

That is, Two: that there are no primacies among the four poles. None takes absolute precedence or priority over the others, and not one single pole supersedes the rest by default. All four affect all four in all permutations of causes and effects.

Integral and Ambivalent Evolutions

Integration. Consequently, PVC pipes may not be subsumed under the issue of genders; neither are women a mere ‘sector’ of class; nor unemployment the offshoot of religious schisms; nor ecumenism a side effect of biodiversity. Rather, all four domains are both and at the same time self-indicating and inter-consequential. And while all four converge throughout history, each pole has its own logic.

If so, we leave ourselves little choice but to take on a monster of a two-handed task: on one hand, to examine the historical development of each pole; and on the other hand, to locate the contexts and connectives that characterize their integration. The first will sharpen our views as we carry out specific programs and hence focus on specific poles; the second will help secure our footing in the tricky balancing act of weaving our affairs together around and among all four.

Ambivalence. It is one fascinating query: Is life in our world today worse or better than when Father Abraham walked on earth in Mesopotamia some six thousand years ago? Or the day some rocker in a ‘primitive communal society’ devised the spear? Or before World Wars I and II? Or prior to the People Power series in very recent past?

We simply take it from the Christian parable of the grains and thorns, and suffice it to say that while the world is getting worse and worse, it is also getting better and better. The vine of sustenance and the deathly poison ivy grow side by side in the thicket of history. They shall both prosper until harvest.

Our present vocabulary is swamped with ‘postmodern’ syllables like deconstruction, niche, enclave, multi-culture, e-group and so forth, suggesting an outbreak of some kind of an intellectual allergy to ‘grand narratives’ and ‘unified theories’ of universal realities. Kaalagad recognizes the ‘shift’, and yet maintains that at the very heart of things, there lurk the two eternal epics of malady and grace.

And that at the dim ends of the poles of ecology, genders, economics and belief-systems, the formidable network of anthropocentrism, patriarchy, capitalist trade and unilateralism is well entrenched; while the bright sides are lit by the sustaining spirits of a creationist ecosophy, mutuality, communitarian economics and pluralism.

Anthropocentrism vis-a-vis a Creationist Ecosophy

Advances in genetics and molecular biology, along with increasing popular concern for the state of the environment, won the day for creation so that it is now conventional wisdom to say that all things are interconnected. Global heating and the fact that all organisms share a universal genetic code clearly demonstrate that, like it or not, we are all in this precarious planetary boat together with our surrounding life support network. The rest is philosophy. And more people are now acknowledging the inalienable intrinsic integrity, not just of humans, but of all creation.

Such realization though is not at all brand new. For sure ‘ecosophy’ is a new semantic addition courtesy of ‘deep ecologists’. But humanity’s awareness of the integrity of the ecosystem is native to many peoples. Sustaining indigenous cultures all over the world illustrate the wisdom of regarding nature with respect and reverence. Among tribal Filipinos, ascribing spirits to trees, rocks, and bodies of water speak of their profound sensitivity and regard for habitat. Christians themselves should be moved by the biblical affirmations concerning the ‘longings of all creation’ that ‘God saw was very good’.

It did not help that there was a time when forests, fossil fuel, mineral deposits, aquatic resources and other ‘natural wealth’ seemed inexhaustible, reinforcing the propensity of ‘civilizations’ to be anthropocentric (centered on humans) to the demise of the ecosystem. For the sake and pleasure of humans, the earth is excavated, mountains are upturned and leveled down, rivers are rerouted, lakes are emptied, oceans are contaminated and the air poisoned a hundredfold over bearable levels. The irony of it is that in wanting to make life more convenient and comfortable, humans have gravely compromised their very own survival.

‘Market forces’ is arguably anthropocentrism’s major sponsor in capitalist societies. But it does not help either that the socialist alternative pays but lip service to environmental protection and biodiversity. Human-caused environmental disasters occur just as regularly and as devastatingly in centrally-planned and state-managed economies. Perhaps the devil lies in the historical plot of Marxian materialist dialectics when it prophesied that the last war will be the war between ‘man and nature’, that is, after the series of ‘class wars’ is decisively won by the proletariat whose dictatorship will ensure the creation of a ‘classless society’. Consequently, to ‘class-based’ movements, environmental advocacy is simply a strategic if not merely a tactical area of encounter in the ‘real’ task of waging class war. This despite the fact that historical records and scientific findings clearly indicate that humans have been at war with nature even long before the three other enmities developed between ‘man and man’. Not the last war, but in fact the first!

Patriarchy vis-s-vis Mutuality

Speaking of ‘man and man’, throughout the ages, societies are so arranged such that males and male characteristics dominate the course of things. In language, culture and public policy, women rank second to men. And the patently unjust arrangement often leads to unspeakable sufferings. Patriarchy (male domination) creates the perfect setting, incentive and justification for sexual harassment and discrimination, rape, commodification, slavery, humiliation and systematic maltreatment of women. What gives, how it happened that it came to be so, again is still pretty much a subject of yet ongoing discussions in Kaalagad on top of the thick bundle of theories dealing with ‘the origin of the family’, ‘production and reproduction divide’, ‘early matriarchal societies’ and so forth.

In any case, we say ‘males and male characteristics’ in order to highlight the social as well as the intrapersonal aspects of gender mutuality. That is to say that while there are obviously male and female individuals, there is also such a thing as male and female characteristics in individuals though suppressed by social, cultural and religious dictates.

Thus when we say ‘macho (male-dominated) culture’, we mean the tendency to let the males and the masculine in ourselves (whether we are women or men) prevail over the females and the feminine in everyone. Note for instance that while both gays and lesbians suffer discrimination, the bakla is uniformly ridiculed in society while the tomboy is sometimes even admired for her ‘strong’ masculine traits. Cultivating mutuality between genders means correcting such distortion and putting males and females as well as maleness and femaleness in their mutually beneficial social and personal locations and roles. ‘Male and female God created them,’ the Scripture declares it quite clearly, directly and succinctly.

Furthermore, Kaalagad’s appreciation of the subject of genders extends to all ‘vulnerabilities by biological consequence’. Hence its version of ‘genderfairness’ incorporates such areas and issues as the natural disadvantages of persons with dis-/different abilities and special needs (including orphans, widows, the aged), suppression of sexual preference, and susceptibility of children to abuse by adults, and ‘physicalities’ such as being fat, sakang, singkit, pango, pangit. And that is also why we indicate Genders in the plural.

There is also a sense in which we may speak of ‘situationality’ in the praxis of gender sensitiveness. A lot may be said, for instance, about why we employ a purely ‘rational’ (maleness?) game in collective bargaining negotiations when it is our ‘affectional’ (femaleness?) reserves that convict us to sympathize with fellow humans. On the other hand, why further agitate, provoke and taunt an already highly frustrated and emotionally volatile crowd when the need of the hour is to state our cause and case clearly, convincingly and coherently.

We have good reason to celebrate though. Feminism, with its full array of perspectives, has gone a long long way. Victims of incest, rape, trafficking and harassment are emboldened to come out in the open. Crises centers for women and children are being instituted and broadened. In some countries, battles are being won along the line of equal opportunity legislation and affirmative action such that jobs and positions traditionally assigned to men are now open to women (though the Vatican still refuses to ordain female priests!). Public funding for initiatives intended to benefit women (though still measly at 5% of local government spending) is being secured. There is much to be done in such areas as reproductive rights, but for now we end this section with the UNESCO observation that, as a matter of fact, girls are now performing better than boys in schools.

Capitalism vis-a-vis Communitarian Economics

Jesus himself hammered on the theme of wealth and want with notoriety, sternly warning his listeners of the serious consequences of ‘serving mammon’. The elite were regularly offended by his biting sermons and parables that exposed their arrogant luxurious ways while extolling the virtues of hard work and humility, and calling the poor and the dispossessed ‘blessed’. His disciples followed suit and summoned the early church to a life of radical simplicity and called on the faithful to unload themselves of material possessions so that the collective resources of the community may sufficiently meet the needs of all. ‘Lest your possessions possess you,’ as today’s faithful nicely put it.

Indeed, of all the four domains, the pole that separates the ‘haves’ from the ‘have-nots’ gets the most attention and draws the largest crowd among advocates and intellectuals. Not a few gifted spirits see it as the master key to unraveling all social mysteries. ‘For the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil,’ so Saint Paul personally instructed his prodigy Timothy. Eighteen hundred years later, the brilliant Karl Marx sliced the whole universe into two and forcefully argued on account of his compelling epochal construction of history that, ultimately, it is the laws of motion of Economics (the ‘substructure’) that determine all else (the ‘superstructure’).

‘Communitarian’ came to Kaalagad first, after trying out several conjugations of ‘community’. And to refer to the domain of social classes, ‘economics’ was then later attached to it as a generic. The trying-hard theorists that we are, it was a pleasant treat to soon find out that there is in fact a wealth of literature on Communitarianism, Communitarian Democracy and Communitarian Economics! And the best part is that they match perfectly with Kaalagad’s four-pole construct.

For its part, Kabuhayang Sapat (enough, sufficiency) outlines Kaalagad’s eight cornerstones of communitarian industry:

1. Benevolence over productivity.
    From each according to capacity, to each according to need.
2. Labor over technocracy.
    Dignity of Work. Consider: 4 million Filipinos unemployed.
3. Equity over affluence.
    The wealthiest 20% consume over 60 times the poorest 20%.
4. Sustainability over surplus.
    Restorative Economics. Consider: the amount of energy that
    took nature 27 years to compound, we squander in 24 hours.
5. Stewardship over ownership.
    Sabbath and Jubilee (Leviticus 25)
6. Insularity over scale.
    Subsidiarity. Small Is Beautiful!
7. Need over luxury.
    Consider: US and Europe spends $13 billion in perfume
    annually - more than enough to wipe out worldwide hunger.
8. Goodwill (God’s will) over profit.
    Enterprise as vocation. (James 4:13-15)

Unilateralism vis-a-vis Pluralism

The term ‘fundamentalism’ is not even one hundred years old (after the publication of The Fundamentals between 1910 and 1915, courtesy of American Protestantism), but the spirit behind it is as old as ever. All of us are infected with the terrible terrible virus of self-righteousness. Whether a church, a political group, a sorority, an academic circle, a club of hobbyists, as activists, crusaders and wannabes, we all believe that we are correct while the others are fatally mistaken. Thus we tend to reduce everything to ‘revolution and counterrevolution’ and cast the billings such that we appear as the Guardians of The Truth and they the doomed forces of perdition.

With such conviction we set up ‘sectarian’ training grounds - ‘schools’ that loot our souls to purify and keep our brains and breasts secure and safe from the political and religious heresies of others. We stamp our publications with imprimaturs and nihil obstats and ‘blessings from the central committee’ and prohibit ‘our forces’ from reading ‘our enemies’ propaganda’.

And madness of madness, even if we believe in similar things such as ‘socialism’, we insist that the only ‘agency’ qualified to undertake it would be us. The center of gravity is us. If it is them showing their butts, it is moral turpitude. If it is us baring our chests, it is a militant heroic act! And if fundamentalism, sectarianism and centralism (or ‘agentialism’) still don’t do the trick, we simplify everything with bats, bullets and bombs. Such is the wretchedness of human folly. Such is Unilateralism.

And yet on the other hand, there are many of us who aspire and work for ecumenism and multiplicity; for integrative education and academic freedom and for creating environments that are conducive to cultivating our varied faiths and competencies; and for building alliances and learning the intricate art of principled coalition politics. Some have incredibly transcended their ‘identities’ and opened their gates to mutual critical dialogue and complementary cohabitation, stressing ‘symmetry of purpose’ over ‘being right or wrong’.

And then there are those enlightened spirits who walk among us with effortless grace and candor, though fully aware that after all our earnest efforts, there is a very real chance that we could be wrong. What a dreadful thought! But if we are dead serious about plurality, we just have to find a way of telling ourselves that, without dying first!

Hierarchism

There is nothing earthshakingly new about it except perhaps that Kaalagad simply took the bull by the horns and dared declare that hierarchism is the ‘original sin’! - the source of all agony in all the four terrains of ecology, genders, economics and ideologies. Flash floods, battered spouses, prostituted children, malnutrition (of which ten million die each year), kotong, frat wars, summary executions, ‘terrorism’ (which has become the convenient pretext for even graver state terrorism and curtailment of civil liberties), you name them - they are all the cursed handiwork of hierarchism.  Not to mention hierarchies in ‘forms of struggle’!

Whether in the vicinities of anthropocentrism, patriarchy, capitalism or unilateralism, all wars are instigated by hierarchism. That is why Kaalagad’s twin call is Stop The Wars - Build Peace, meaning to expose and dismantle hierarchism in all its forms and disguises at all layers in all the four domains - and make amends.

Seeks to Serve the Poor

We went around this phrase early on to locate it in its proper context. In seeking to serve the poor, Kaalagad makes a distinction between hierarchism and ‘historical bias’. We may imagine that in the ‘new heaven and new earth’ there shall be neither rich nor poor, but in the meantime, societies are bitterly torn between aggressors and aggrieved. ‘Preferential option’ for the poor does not mean though that we now want the earthworms, the females, the laborers and the minorities to rule the world.

‘Baligtarin ang tatsulok! At mga dukha ang ilagay mo sa tuktok!’ is sharp and good, and brave and bold. But no, we do not wish to overturn the ‘social triangle’ so that the oppressed may have their sweet revenge and tyrannize their erstwhile tyrants. We wish to banish it for good, period. And for us, the best way to do that is to creatively and effectively intervene in history and help correct the distortions by pitching our tents at the camps of endangered species, women and the genderly disadvantaged, the needy, and the culturally, religiously and politically marginalized.

Communitarianism

The word ‘heteronomy’ means the condition of being under the employ or service of another. It is an ambivalent word. It sounds oppressive at once, and yet it is a meaningful word to those who are conscientious enough to appreciate that there are situations in life when we are called to forego of our ‘autonomy’ in favor of the wellbeing of others. Parents often eagerly make personal sacrifices in behalf of their children, as do anonymous donors to faceless recipients, yet they do not feel exploited or oppressed. On the contrary, it gives them great satisfaction to show their love and commitment. Similarly, those who have decided to follow Christ are joyfully bound by their life-fulfilling and liberating captivity to the Gospel.

It is in that sense that communitarianism is appreciated and espoused by communitarian democrats. Meaning that at the end of the day, Kaalagad rests its case before the courts of the community. The community is the most mature and best qualified social agency for regulating and reconciling our converging and conflicting political interests. Sovereignty resides neither in the national agenda, nor the whims of individuals, and certainly not in power brokers. And when we daresay ‘Serve The People’, we mean the Community - not the Leaders, not the Party, not the State and not the Movement.

The community though is more than just an instrumentality for good governance. Like we said, it is a gathering of servants who are happy to serve one another. Ultimately, what cures our unbeing, what makes us whole again, what restores our shalom, the real deal, is the community of healed relationships. Earlier we mentioned that the letters K and D of Kaalagad stand for Kapatiran at Demokrasya.

But why not simply the literal Komunidad at Demokrasya to square off with communitarian democracy? It means that too. Only that Kaalagad wishes to delve one more inch closer to the gut and take heed of our seemingly casual yet deeply incisive usage of the commonplace term kapatid. And as such, confess to one another that we are from one another, of one another and for one another. Tayo sa isa’t isa ay mga buong kapiraso ng kabuuan ng lahat. We are of each other entire pieces in the entirety of all.

What we are saying is, if we are to pick one word to describe the one true thing we are hoping for, that word would be Communion. And we mean it in the way it is most commonly appreciated by many. ‘This is My body and blood, offered to many for the forgiveness of sins (restoration of relationships). Take, eat, drink, share among yourselves (there’s enough for everybody if we only democratize!) and remember (to constantly remind ourselves to constantly renew our ties and ‘be again a member’ of one another),’ so says the Lord. And in the spirit of Communitarian grace, may everyone say:

To All Creation, Mutuality, Communitarian Industry and Plurality,  Amen! Amen! Amen! and Amen!