What do you think?
Rate this book
Southeast Asia: Politics, Meaning, and Memory
In the Name of Civil Society: From Free Election Movements to People Power in the Philippines
In the Name of Civil Society examines Philippine politics in a highly original and provocative way. Hedman's detailed analysis shows how dominant elites in the Philippines shore up the structures of liberal democracy in order to ensure their continued hegemony over Philippine society. This book will be of interest to everyone concerned with civil society and the processes of democratization and democracy in capitalist societies. --Paul D. Hutchcroft, University of Wisconsin, Madison
What is the politics of civil society? Focusing on the Philippines--home to the mother of all election-watch movements, the original People Power revolt, and one of the largest and most diverse NGO populations in the world--Eva-Lotta Hedman offers a critique that goes against the grain of much other current scholarship. Her highly original work challenges celebratory and universalist accounts that tend to reify civil society as a unified and coherent entity, and to ascribe a single meaning and automatic trajectory to its role in democratization. She shows how mobilization in the name of civil society is contingent on the intercession of citizens and performative displays of citizenship--as opposed to other appeals and articulations of identity, such as class. In short, Hedman argues, the very definitions of civil and society are at stake. Based on extensive research spanning the course of a decade (1991-2001), this study offers a powerful analysis of Philippine politics and society inspired by the writings of Antonio Gramsci. It draws on a rich collection of sources from archives, interviews, newspapers, and participant-observation. It identifies a cycle of recurring crises of authority, involving mounting threats--from above and below--to oligarchical democracy in the Philippines. Tracing the trajectory of Gramscian dominant bloc of social forces, Hedman shows how each such crisis in the Philippines promotes a countermobilization by the intellectuals of the dominant bloc: the capitalist class, the Catholic Church, and the U.S. government. In documenting the capacity of so-called secondary associations (business, lay, professional) to project moral and intellectual leadership in each of these crises, this study sheds new light on the forces and dynamics of change and continuity in Philippine politics and society.
What is the politics of civil society? Focusing on the Philippines--home to the mother of all election-watch movements, the original People Power revolt, and one of the largest and most diverse NGO populations in the world--Eva-Lotta Hedman offers a critique that goes against the grain of much other current scholarship. Her highly original work challenges celebratory and universalist accounts that tend to reify civil society as a unified and coherent entity, and to ascribe a single meaning and automatic trajectory to its role in democratization. She shows how mobilization in the name of civil society is contingent on the intercession of citizens and performative displays of citizenship--as opposed to other appeals and articulations of identity, such as class. In short, Hedman argues, the very definitions of civil and society are at stake. Based on extensive research spanning the course of a decade (1991-2001), this study offers a powerful analysis of Philippine politics and society inspired by the writings of Antonio Gramsci. It draws on a rich collection of sources from archives, interviews, newspapers, and participant-observation. It identifies a cycle of recurring crises of authority, involving mounting threats--from above and below--to oligarchical democracy in the Philippines. Tracing the trajectory of Gramscian dominant bloc of social forces, Hedman shows how each such crisis in the Philippines promotes a countermobilization by the intellectuals of the dominant bloc: the capitalist class, the Catholic Church, and the U.S. government. In documenting the capacity of so-called secondary associations (business, lay, professional) to project moral and intellectual leadership in each of these crises, this study sheds new light on the forces and dynamics of change and continuity in Philippine politics and society.
- GenresHistory
284 pages, Hardcover
First published December 15, 2005
1 person is currently reading
26 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 11, 2022
I’m torn on this because I think it’s a really informative and well-researched book but I felt like its aims could have been pushed much further. Paul Hutchcroft’s blurb at the back says that it’s a “detailed analysis [that] shows how dominant elites in the Philippines shore up the structures of liberal democracy in order to ensure their continued hegemony over Philippine society,” but I don’t actually feel like this is an accurate assessment of the book. I would have wanted to read that book but this wasn’t exactly that. That’s not Hedman’s fault but it did give me the wrong expectations coming into this.
In the Name of Civil Society is a look at the results of three different “election watch” movements in Philippine history: in 1953, 1969, and 1986. The book analyzes the factors that led to these three junctures and attempts to explain the historical trends that eventually led to the successes of NAMFREL in 1986. It also less convincingly extends its arguments to the expressions of “civil society” during People Power II in 2001. It uses a Gramscian framework in order to theoretically situate the arguments in a more universal sense, though I don’t think it was necessary.
What I found most interesting was learning about the first iteration of NAMFREL during the re-election campaign for Elpidio Quirino since this was new information for me. It mentions the heavy involvement of U.S. intervention and particularly the CIA, which is a recurring theme throughout the different election watch campaigns. But this also leads to my biggest issue with the book: it doesn’t fully address the weight of international involvement in local politics and how this may undermine the idea of a national “civil society” in the first place. In some places the book’s descriptions even seem to defend this international involvement as proper expressions of liberal democracy. U.S. involvement is not hidden and is mentioned often but its analysis feels to me lacking.
I also felt like there’s no discussion on how an “election watch” campaign being popularly disseminated and promoted by many dominant economic and cultural elites obviously doubles as support for whoever the opposition candidate is. For example, Quirino’s presidency was known to be very corrupt and so on paper the U.S. and other elite factions decided to promote “election watch campaigns” in order to ensure “fair elections,” as they expected him to cheat. But wouldn’t that also be an implicit denunciation of the incumbent and therefore can be seen as an expression of support for the main candidate against them? In this case it would be Ramon Magsaysay, who had well-documented close relationships with the CIA and was heavily supported and favored by the U.S. because they thought he would be more successful at defeating the disgruntled farmers of the Communist-led Hukbalahap. The CIA even planned out his presidential campaign. This feels to me ripe for examination as to whether these can therefore truly constitute an expression of liberal democracy as Hedman argues. Are election watch campaigns really about “election watching” or is it in practice a euphemism for spreading partisan support?
This is definitely a complicated issue and I’m sure each instance would yield totally different answers, but this felt to me a big gap in the research for this book. It seemed to me that it takes for granted how “election watching” even just partly funded and organized by foreign actors such as the U.S. may actually have little to do with upholding the ideals of the democratic process. One only needs to look at similar programs promoted by the U.S. in countries in Latin America to put this to question. Why would the Philippine case be considered any different?
Besides these issues, I do think it’s an important addition to Philippine scholarship and I hope future researchers can build on these foundations to deepen the discourse on these events even more.
In the Name of Civil Society is a look at the results of three different “election watch” movements in Philippine history: in 1953, 1969, and 1986. The book analyzes the factors that led to these three junctures and attempts to explain the historical trends that eventually led to the successes of NAMFREL in 1986. It also less convincingly extends its arguments to the expressions of “civil society” during People Power II in 2001. It uses a Gramscian framework in order to theoretically situate the arguments in a more universal sense, though I don’t think it was necessary.
What I found most interesting was learning about the first iteration of NAMFREL during the re-election campaign for Elpidio Quirino since this was new information for me. It mentions the heavy involvement of U.S. intervention and particularly the CIA, which is a recurring theme throughout the different election watch campaigns. But this also leads to my biggest issue with the book: it doesn’t fully address the weight of international involvement in local politics and how this may undermine the idea of a national “civil society” in the first place. In some places the book’s descriptions even seem to defend this international involvement as proper expressions of liberal democracy. U.S. involvement is not hidden and is mentioned often but its analysis feels to me lacking.
I also felt like there’s no discussion on how an “election watch” campaign being popularly disseminated and promoted by many dominant economic and cultural elites obviously doubles as support for whoever the opposition candidate is. For example, Quirino’s presidency was known to be very corrupt and so on paper the U.S. and other elite factions decided to promote “election watch campaigns” in order to ensure “fair elections,” as they expected him to cheat. But wouldn’t that also be an implicit denunciation of the incumbent and therefore can be seen as an expression of support for the main candidate against them? In this case it would be Ramon Magsaysay, who had well-documented close relationships with the CIA and was heavily supported and favored by the U.S. because they thought he would be more successful at defeating the disgruntled farmers of the Communist-led Hukbalahap. The CIA even planned out his presidential campaign. This feels to me ripe for examination as to whether these can therefore truly constitute an expression of liberal democracy as Hedman argues. Are election watch campaigns really about “election watching” or is it in practice a euphemism for spreading partisan support?
This is definitely a complicated issue and I’m sure each instance would yield totally different answers, but this felt to me a big gap in the research for this book. It seemed to me that it takes for granted how “election watching” even just partly funded and organized by foreign actors such as the U.S. may actually have little to do with upholding the ideals of the democratic process. One only needs to look at similar programs promoted by the U.S. in countries in Latin America to put this to question. Why would the Philippine case be considered any different?
Besides these issues, I do think it’s an important addition to Philippine scholarship and I hope future researchers can build on these foundations to deepen the discourse on these events even more.
Displaying 1 of 1 review