Reform and Civil Rights in the Philippines: A Contrast of Three Perspectives
For this comparative paper, three major works will be cited and analyzed: “Philippines : antecedents et defis des mouvements paysans contemporains” by Santurino M. Borras Jr and Jennifer C. Franco, “Philippines : transformations des ‘movements sociaux’ en ‘societe civile’” by Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem, as well a selection from the text “The Politics of NGOs in Southeast Asia: Participation and Protest in the Philippines (Politics in Asia)” by Gerard Clarke. All three works discuss the role and influences of governmental and non-governmental organizations on the people, particularly the poorest agrarian workers, of the Philippines throughout the last half-century. …show more content…
They looked at agrarian reform in a similar style of analysis to how Clarke looked at the role of NGO’s by comparing the various motives, facades, and relevant actors to the political climate. For example, they examine the role of the KMP (Peasant Movement of the Philippines) and CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program). The KMP’s objective was to question agrarian reform in order to respond to the needs of the country’s poorest inhabitants (Borras and Franco 207). They were more concerned with this objective than the actual possession of land, yet, according to their analysis, the problem of land grabbing and inefficient use of land remained a serious problem throughout the eighties during Marcos regime (207). By contrast, CARP took a much more people-powered approach to doing justice by the peasants of the Philippines (Borras and Franco 208). While the KMP took land under its control, CARP was able to effectively return around seven million hectares of land to families who, by their view, had suffered from land-grabbing (Borras and Franco 208). The concept of perspective is important to consider because in both cases, each group considered its actions and ideologies to be justified. It appears that neither organization was particularly seeking to do wrong by the peasant people. It happened that their ideologies, especially in the case of KMP, hindered their ability to effectively reform and improve upon the issue of significant poverty in the
For this comparative paper, three major works will be cited and analyzed: “Philippines : antecedents et defis des mouvements paysans contemporains” by Santurino M. Borras Jr and Jennifer C. Franco, “Philippines : transformations des ‘movements sociaux’ en ‘societe civile’” by Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem, as well a selection from the text “The Politics of NGOs in Southeast Asia: Participation and Protest in the Philippines (Politics in Asia)” by Gerard Clarke. All three works discuss the role and influences of governmental and non-governmental organizations on the people, particularly the poorest agrarian workers, of the Philippines throughout the last half-century. …show more content…
They looked at agrarian reform in a similar style of analysis to how Clarke looked at the role of NGO’s by comparing the various motives, facades, and relevant actors to the political climate. For example, they examine the role of the KMP (Peasant Movement of the Philippines) and CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program). The KMP’s objective was to question agrarian reform in order to respond to the needs of the country’s poorest inhabitants (Borras and Franco 207). They were more concerned with this objective than the actual possession of land, yet, according to their analysis, the problem of land grabbing and inefficient use of land remained a serious problem throughout the eighties during Marcos regime (207). By contrast, CARP took a much more people-powered approach to doing justice by the peasants of the Philippines (Borras and Franco 208). While the KMP took land under its control, CARP was able to effectively return around seven million hectares of land to families who, by their view, had suffered from land-grabbing (Borras and Franco 208). The concept of perspective is important to consider because in both cases, each group considered its actions and ideologies to be justified. It appears that neither organization was particularly seeking to do wrong by the peasant people. It happened that their ideologies, especially in the case of KMP, hindered their ability to effectively reform and improve upon the issue of significant poverty in the