“Big Red Book”
Written by: Anonymous;
Published: 1993 in the “Big Red Book” or Crisis of Socialism Strategies of Action and Internal Democracy: Study Debate Discussion Summing-up: Profound Re-Examination and Revitalization: Krisis Ng Sosyalismo Istratehiya Ng Pagkilos at Internal Na Demokrasya: Pag-Aaral Debate Diskusyon Paglalagom: Malalimang Muling Pagsusuri at Pagpapanibagong-Sigla;
Source: Transcribed from a scan of the “Big Red Book” made by Karlo Mikhail I. Mongaya at DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32328.74241;
Transcription: Ka Bangon Laya;
Markup: Simoun Magsalin;
Copyright: No copyrights were indicated in the text.
TO ENSURE INTERNAL UNITY, the Party instituted the principles and processes of democratic centralism and the committee system. These principles and processes uphold the setting up of the authority of a unified central leadership based on the supremacy of collective leadership, collective wisdom, majority rule and ensuring democratic participation of the mass membership
Unfortunately though, in our view, in trying to resolve the currentThe bogus Tenth Plenum of the Central Committee controversies within the Party, serious breaches of these principles and processes were committed, thereby further aggravating the existing differences and disunity; and creating more problems and confusion
We thought we are now past the stage wherein an individual—no matter how high his position in the Party may be — can easily monopolize the affairs of the Party. Way back in 1976, the paper "Our Urgent Tasks" rightly criticized this malady and put forward measures of correction. This document was drafted by Amado Guerrero (then, the Party chairman), and approved by the Central Committee. The whole Party upheld its correctness, rectified our errors in many fields based on this document and made great advances. But then, this malady of one-man monopoly in Party affairs is precisely what afflicts our Party today. And it is disheartening to note that the person involved is Armando Liwanag, supposed to be the current Party chairman. And if we just leave this malady uncriticized and uncorrected this time, the Party would seem to be a hopeless case in an affliction of this kind.
Among others, a glaring case in point is the paper "Reaffirm Our Basic Principles and Rectify the Errors" by Armando Liwanag. It first came out as a policy paper without the benefit of even informal consultation (much less formal discussions) among the members of the Party's central leading bodies. It circulated among Party units not through official communication lines but through such irregular lines as the legal institutions and offices. After receiving comments of disapproval from many leading cadres, a second version of "Reaffirm..." was circulated, now with the EC's approval and cosmetics, this time as official CC policy paper, again without going through the proper Party decision-making processes.
In our view, a policy paper that concerns matters of such great import and far-reaching significance — a crucial rectification paper — should have at least gone through a PB discussion, then finally approved by the CC plenum (or better still, the Party congress) before being made as the official Party policy paper. No doubt, the paper "Reaffirm... " is considered to be highly questionable for its grossly incorrect data, biased conclusions, one-sidedness, malicious accusations and policy formulations of suspect saneness. Many well-meaning comrades are accused of grave crimes without affording them due process and without even giving them the chance to air their side. No doubt, this said paper, because of grave infirmities in its content and process of formulation, is rejected by many of our cadres and members (maybe, even by the great majority) and has become the most controversial paper within the Party ever.
AL’s one-man monopoly of Party affairs runs through the pages of his paper “Reaffirm...” for its patent bias and one-sidedness. It is a rectification paper for the whole Party criticizing all and accusing many of errors and deviations, except himself. And truly, our Party is capable of rectifying its errors, except those errors and deviations (and maybe, even crimes) committed by the chairman.
Expectedly, this one-man monopoly affliction of AL hides behind the cloak of the Party chairman's office and his self-arrogated and self-defined executive powers. But Comrade Mao has this as his advise:
“Don't live on the power of your office, your high position or seniority. Speaking of seniority, we have been making revolution for many years, and while this record of ours does count, still we must not live on it. True, you are a veteran who has worked for several decades. For all that, when you do something foolish and talk nonsense, the people won't excuse you. No matter how many your good deeds in the past and no matter how high your post, if today you are not doing a good job, not solving problems correctly and thus harming the people's interests, they won't forgive you. Therefore our comrades should rely not on seniority but on being correct in solving problems. What counts here is correctness, not seniority. Since you cannot rely on your seniority, you might as well forget about it, as if you had never been an official at all, that is, you must stop putting on the airs and go among the people and among your subordinates This is a point our cadres, and particularly our old cadres, must keep in mind.”
This piece of advice from the Chairman must be doubly meaningful for a chairman who have been long absent from the mainstream of the people's revolutionary struggle.
We bring up this problem of the chairman being divorced from the Party's collective leadership processes because this is undermining the leadership of the Party's central leading bodies and a source of disunity and confusion.
We bet a chance, at least, that AL could have performed better in understanding the situation and problems of the movement and in his leading role in resolving the current controversies besieging the Party had he directly participated in the Party's collective leadership processes. But instead of taking charge of these central leading bodies, he acted divorced from them leaving them out in the cold. His direct interaction within the central leading bodies, with our cadres in the field and his direct involvement in the thick of things in the people's struggle could have taught him how wrong is his paper “Reaffirm...”
There could be some understandable cases of a chairman's physical absence from his party's central leading bodies. But for him to leave his party mired in serious problems and controversies and go abroad would be outright desertion. But wonder of all wonders! the people's revolution is now being led through an electronic umbilical cord, by a chairman tucked away safe and in comfort, far in some distant land.
The EC at present is composed of three; one abroad taking on such very important responsibilities as chairman of the Party and head (in absentia!) of the EC, and the other two a husband-and-wife tandem
And now we ask, how can this function as a Party collective to take on the burdens of Party collective leadership?
Again we ask, what is left of the question of democratic basis in the creation of the Party's center of leadership in this EC of three, composed of a husband-and-wife tandem and a head from afar?
The question of the EC deciding on major Party policy matters still is on the balance because of EC's own insistence in hanging on to these powers. In the Party constitution, it states that:
“Ang Komite Sentral, sa plenum nito, ay maghahalal ng Kawanihang Pampulitika, ng Komiteng Tagapagpaganap ng Kawanihang Pampulitika, ng Kalihiman, ng tagapangulo ng Komite Sentral at ng mga pangalawa nito, ng pangkalahatang kalihim at iba pang kalihim ng Komite Sentral.
“a. Ang Kawanihang Pampulitika, kasama ng Komiteng Tagapagpaganap nito, ang magsasabalikat ng mga tungkulin at kapangyarihan ng Komite Sentral sa pagitan ng mga plenum”
Major policy matters are deliberated on and decided upon with foresight and thoroughness (as it should be), and covers longer time-frame (usually one to three years). These matters properly belong to the PB in between CC plena. While the EC takes on the lead role in ensuring that Party policies and resolutions are implemented properly and well.
Of course, the unexpected happens many times as we go along with our revolutionary tasks. The EC, minding the day-to-day affairs of the Party central leadership, is in the position to face such unexpected matters and emergencies. One would not want the Party to be caught headless and incapable in such situations that emergency powers are given the EC to act even on such major policy questions that should belong to the PB. But it should never be forgotten that such matters properly belong to the PB and the EC should spare no effort to present these to the PB at the soonest possible time.
But the practice of the EC arrogating unto itself the powers of deciding on major Party policies has become a bad habit. Take the case of the paper "Lead the Masses, Launch the offensives". Drafted by AL, approved by the EC, and it became the Party policy. As simple as that! It was not even an emergency. Nevertheless, it became the policy for a Party of tens of thousands membership concerning such matters as mobilizing the masses in gigantic mass movements and the people's army launching widespread and intense tactical offensives. And these because AL and the EC imagined that a revolutionary flow situation in the country had finally come about.
What happened? Even before the PB can be convened (to give the paper its blessings), Party cadre conferences and consultations were made. And the mass organizations and alliances were mobilized in spite of our cadres' protestations that this so-called revolutionary flow situation didn't exist. These gigantic mass actions were not realized. This imaginary "revolutionary flow" was forgotten. And we are now called t o repent and reaffirm our basic principles.
It is relevant to note at this point that the controversial "Reaffirm..." could not have happened without the EC's collusion. The second version, now with the EC's cosmetics and imprimatur, was circulated to gain approval among the Party's rank-and-file and create a situation of fait accompli come the PB meeting and the CC plenum.
This three-man EC has become all too powerful to the point of disregarding the PB and its supervision when it contradicts the EC's wishes and convenience. The 1989 Party anniversary statement was put to the PB's deliberations, amendments and approval. But all the same, it came out in the purest Armando Liwanag form with the EC's mark. Where was the PB? At this same PB meeting, it decided to put to hold the Party paper on the international situation and policy, and subject it to a deeper and more thorough study. But all the same, it came out again in the purest Armando Liwanag form: Where was the PB? And of course,, it could only be blamed on the EC's resistance to PB supervision that AL could easily make such secret letters to the EC for surveillance and/or arrests of leading Party cadres. We can go on furthermore illustrating where the PB was when the three-man EC became all too powerful. But God forbid! because this EC is still too powerful.
The period after the boycott error of 1986 is what AL and the EC calls the opening of the "floodgates of ultrademocracy" within the Party. Of course, rightful and objective criticism of errors of this kind within the Party is in order. But maybe (just maybe), AL and the EC may have even gone too far in their criticism in the paper “Reaffirm...” (—how can we know when this has not yet been objectively summed up and thoroughly studied?).
But a cause for concern i n this question is how AL and the husband-and-wife tandem escaped culpability and their errors and shortcomings glossed over. In the paper “Reaffirm...”, the EC was excused for being “beleaguered” because, “as it was then composed” (as AL says), AL was not yet its head. But can AL simply escape responsibility just because he was not at the helm of the EC at this time only to insist later that he is, in fact, the rightful chairman of the Party ever since? He was in a position to do something during this time. He could have seen how the Party needed his leadership at this time. Instead, he ignored invitations to attend Party meetings (PB and EC) and slept on situationer briefings arranged for him.
Likewise, the husband-and-wife tandem should also be held responsible for this. They were the principal leaders of the Party. And “certain central staff organs were acting like centers of comprehensive political authority” (as AL says) because they were forced to do this. Because, the fast developing situation and our cadres involved in their fields of work were crying out for someone to act as “comprehensive political authority”. Because, this husband-and-wife tandem did not provide this. What they did was criticize these "central staff organs" for their effort and called them to answer for “ultrademocracy” for their initiative. Instead of giving them "comprehensive political leadership", AL and the husband-and-wife tandem became their overbearing post-mortem leaders.
And now this AL's “Reaffirm...” has come and maybe (just maybe) AL would call this period the opening of the "mother of all floodgates of ultrademocracy." AL and the EC wants to ram down this paper on the whole Party. But Party organs, units and cadres are unrelentingly opposing. This is the first time that AL's one-man monopoly in Party affairs meet a strong opposition by so many. And to AL and the EC, this must be the "ultrademocraciest" act within the Party ever.
The so-called Tenth Plenum of the Central Committee was bogus all throughout, from start to finish.
Its "quorum" was an improvised quorum. At worst, the CC membership present at the opening of the plenary meeting was even less than 1/5 of all the CC membership elected in the Ninth Plenum. At best, it was only 1/2 of what they called as "active CC members", a category made with its definition improvised by the four PB members present. But by some fantastic hocus-pocus, it became even more than the required 2/3 majority. But they should answer the following questions:
What authority do they have to exclude other CC members? Many of them capable of attending the plenum were not even notified and sent the agenda. It is not only a right, but a duty for a CC member to attend CC plenum. More so, it is an obligation for the EC to spare no effort in extending facility for members to come to the meeting. Further, the EC should have solicited the views of our imprisoned CC members.
What authority do they have t o exclude active CC members though they may be abroad — just to squeeze in a 2/3 majority? Again, those members have their rights and duties, and the EC has its obligations. What authority do they have to "improvise" two new CC members on the eve of a CC plenum — again, just to squeeze in the required majority? Doesn't the promotion of additional CC members from among the alternates rightfully belong to the CC plenum?
Even if there is a real quorum, can a CC plenum ever be legitimate when the rights and duties, to attend and express their views, of some of its members (be they in the minority) are violated?
Finally, they decided that the so-called "plenum" could now start; they did proceed. Indeed, it was a "plenum" full of "Reaffirms..." And by its outcome, it became a rubber-stamp plenum.
It reaffirmed the "Reaffirm...", again, in its purest Armando Liwanag form, albeit in Pilipino. But didn't they discussed and debated on it? Truly, many thought they had scrapped some 50-70% of its trash, still others, that it had been superceded by a summing-up document to be written. But good heavens! The husband-and-wife duo produced a pure "Reaffirm...."
In their letter to the "CC" members, this duo explained how it was done:
“Hindi itinuloy ang dating iniisip na balangkas ng dokumento at maraming usaping iniisip na sasaklawin noon ang hindi na tinalakay sa kasalukuyang papel. Nang upuan na ang pagsusulat, nakitang mahirap ipasok sa lisang dokumento ang iba't ibang antas at anggulo ng mga pangyayari at mga sapin sa nakaraan. Nakitang pinakamainam na may isang dokumentong tumatalakay sa mga pinakamahalagang isyu at pangyayari (na pinakamaigi nang ibatay sa papel ni AL) at may mga hiwalay na resolusyon, desisyon, memorandum at iba pang papel na naglutuon sa iba pang mahahalagang usapin.”
Of course. "mahirap ipasok sa... papel ni AL" matters that belie it. We have a case here of "cutting the feet to fit the shoes", pure and simple. But why do they have to do this? Here is what the duo says:
“Ang paglilinaw sa katayuan ng mga dokumento ni AL at KTKS ay pormal na isinulat alinsunod na rin sa kapasyahan ng plenum. Ginawa ito upang sarhan ang ang mga malisyosong atake sa awtoridad ni AL at KTKS na gumawa ng ganoong mga dokumento. Dapat alisan ng anumang dahilang magagamit ang mga elementong tutol sa kilusang pagwawasto.”
In here now, we have caught the monster by its mouth! AL and the EC wants to make the whole Party swallow all their papers and suppress even the slightest opposition. That is why the bogus "plenum" has to make do with "Reaffirm..." in its absurd pure form. That is why even the bogus "plenum" has to suffer AL's and the EC's high-handednes.
It also reaffirmed AL's and the husband-and-wife tandem's dictatorial and conspiratorial rule over the Party. This was done in a very subtle manner: election by viva voce for the troika, secret ballot for the rest of the "CC" members.
But why a special viva voce vote just for the three of them?
Answer: a very, very subtle coercive manipulation to have this scheming troika elected to the Party's topmost positions. AL may have sensed a growing opposition within the Party to his bullyish and conspiratorial kind of leadership He may have sensed his prestige fast eroding with "skeletons i n his closet" coming out one by one. The worst case among them was brought out and verified before the "plenum". But then, he was elected by viva voce!
Other "reaffirms" were reaffirmed.
And finally, it affirmed the so-called "Rectification Movement" to pave the way for AL's “Reaffirm...”
Indeed, it was a bogus "plenum". It was an improvised makeshift "plenum" tailor-made for AL and his “Reaffirm....”
Our Party cadres and members, in their great numbers, are strongly criticizing the paper "Reaffirm.." for the dangers it poses to the very life of the Party and the people's revolutionary struggle. And for all the gravity and seriousness of the matters involved, broad democratic participation of our cadres and mass membership was denied, even violating Party rules. Then, here now comes AL's and the EC's "rectification movement".
With the bogus "plenum" affirming the paper "Desisyon sa Kilusang Pagwawasto", the almighty troika launched their so-called "rectification move- ment"
First, they drew the battle lines They transformed the differences of views within the Party into a two-line struggle. The paper "Desisyon..." proclaims:
“...sa kabila ng lawak, laki at lubha ng lumitaw na mga paglihis, pagkakamali at disoryentasyon sa mga pangunahing larangan ng gawain at sa kabunang istratehiko at taktikal na pamumuno sa rebolusyon, mayroong mga naggugumiit sa kanilang paglihis at pagkakamali at may mga humahadlang sa pagpuna at pagwawasto. Lumitaw at umigting ang tunggalian ng dalawang linya sa loob ng Partido.”
To the troika, this means: bow your head to the "Reaffirm..." and you are a "good comrade", criticize the "Reaffirm..." then you are "bad comrade" (much more if you oppose for you can even be a criminal).
Then, they set the methods (and rules). The paper "Desisyon..." set the three methods of criticisms and self-criticisms, assessments and summing-ups, and study courses. But look at how undemocratic, restrictive and coercive this "rectification movement" is. "Desisyon..." says:
“a. Pagpupunahan at pagpuna-sa-sarili sa loob ng pangkalahatang balangkas ng paglalagom ng Komite Sentral at iba pang sentral na mga dokumento sa pagwawasto, at sa mas partikular na balangkas ng paglalagom at pagwawasto sa mga takdang organo at yunit”
In clear letters, criticisms outside the framework of "Reaffirm..." are not allowed, much more to criticize it., The restrictions goes on further:
“Sa halos lahat ng kaso, ang pagpupunahan at pagpuna-sa-sarili ay pwedeng magawa at ilimita sa loob ng mga partikular na organo at yunit... Pagpapasyahan ng nakakataas na organo ang pagtukoy ng anumang organo, yunit o individual na pupunahin lampas sa isang takdang saklaw. Ipinagbabawal ang mga pulong ng pagpuna na lumalampas sa mga kinauukulang saklaw.”
Good God! Our "good comrades" are, in here, being directed t o do their mea culpa only in their own cubicles. Only when the "higher organ" allows them can they, from their cubicles, shout their criticisms to whatever Party organ, unit or whomever this "higher organ" directs.
Clearly, the "higher organ" cannot be criticized if they would not allow it. AL and the husband-and-wife duo, in the topmost "higher organ" of our Party, would not tolerate criticisms if those criticisms are not to their liking.
And for the "bad comrades", they have to fall in line or else... AL and the EC are candid: “the central leadership must not hesitate to remove from the Party” any of these "bad comrades" for their criticism or rejection of the “Reaffirm...”
That's it; it's a purge! With the great numbers of our Party cadres and members opposing this "Reaffirm...", think of the magnitude of losses the Party would suffer. But AL and the husband-and-wife tandem doesn't care, their slogan is “a bit fewer but a lot better”.
To coerce Party cadres and members into accepting this "Reaffirm...", they go even as far as violating their basic rights (be they "good comrade" or "bad"). This act alone strips this so-called "rectification movement" of any democratic pretensions. Our Party constitution clearly provides:
“a. to participate freely in discussions during Party meetings concerning theoretical and practical problems regarding the Party line, policies and decisions;
c. to submit proposals, statements o r complaints & any Party organization or organ at any level;
d. to criticize any Party organization, organ or member in Party meetings;
f. to appeal any decision to a higher Party organ up to the Central Committee and National Congress;”
And, take note that the exercise of criticism is recognized by this constitution not only as a right but likewise as a duty of every member!
Maybe, the brains behind this so-called "rectification movement" would listen to Comrade Mao. Speaking of their experiences in rectification movements they hav e launched, he has this to say:
““Rectification means correcting one's way of thinking and style of work... On the one hand, we must be strict and conduct criticism and self-criticism with respect to mistakes and shortcomings seriously, not perfunctorily, and correct them; on the other hand, we must use the method of the "gentle breeze and mild rain" and that of “learning from past mistakes to avoid future ones and curing the sickness to save the patient”, and we must oppose the method of "finishing people off with a single blow.”
The unity of our Party has already suffered enough from this paper "Reaffirm..." This is a supposed summing-up of our Party's revolutionary experiences since 1980. But its grave infirmities push so many of our cadres and members to criticize and reject this. That is why, in our view, an all-encompassing, objective and thorough summing-up of the rich experiences of the Party and the revolutionary movement is in order.
For this summing-up to be all-encompassing, we propose it to cover the 23 years since our Party was re-established in 1968. And for this to be objective and thorough, we propose that this be done in a way that ensures Party-wide democratic participation. We firmly believe this will settle once and for all the differences of views that haunts the Party's unity.
The unity of our Party has already suffered greatly from the grave defects in its leadership structures and processes. The Party has greatly advanced in number and experience. We need to remedy these grave defects that have gone as far as allowing even the trampling of the most basic rights of the Party member. That is why, in our view, we urgently need to call the Party's Second Congress.
We call for a strong Party unity.
SG-Visayas Commission,
Communist Party of the Philippines
November 1, 1992