APPENDIX A

*Excerpt on the discussion of Introduction on Political Parties, Dynamics and

Movement, Political Parties by S.B.M., et al. (2016)

Introduction

The role of political parties in making democracy work is well-discoursed and, at least in
theory, is also well-accepted. Worldwide, however, there is growing dissatisfaction
towards parties and party politics. This is more apparent in countries where democracy
is weak and parties serve other un-democratic purposes. Parties are supposed to serve
the purpose of interest aggregation, leadership formation and candidate-selection.
However, in some countries like the Philippines, parties have largely been a mechanism
to facilitate patronage and personality-oriented politics.

In the Philippines, much of the studies on political parties discuss how the lack of
functioning political parties and under-developed or mal-developed party system
weakens democratic practice. Studies on political parties have established the negative
impact of wrongly-developed and underperforming political parties on democratization.
Almonte would observe that “because of its weaknesses, the party system has failed to
offer meaningful policy choices—and so to provide for orderly change” (2007; 66). In the
same vein, Hutchcroft and Rocamora note that “Philippine-style democracy provides a
convenient system by which power can be rotated at the top without effective
participation of those below” (2003; 274). Parties are central to fundamental political
processes ranging from representing societal interests, providing political alternatives,
mobilizing voters, and channeling conflict. Therefore, it is essential for any student of
politics in old and new democracies alike to understand how parties emerge and how
they function.

What is a political party?

A political party is defined as an organized and presumably durable association, either

of individuals or of distinguishable groups of individuals, which endeavours to place its
members in governmental offices for the purpose of bringing about the adoption of
favoured political policies or programmes. Of all the characteristics of parties, the one
which distinguishes them from all other associations evincing a substantial interest in
public affairs is their effort to secure the election or the appointment of their own
personnel to the public positions through which the policies of government are
prescribed for implementation.
Characteristics of Political Party

One of the primary characteristics of a political party is its endeavour to control the
exercise of governmental powers by placing its own members in the public offices
through which the policies of government are determined. Among these offices are
those endowed with law-making authority and those invested with the power to direct
and supervise the execution of laws. The technique for attaining the aforesaid objective
of a party depends on the methods by which such offices are filled under a given
system of government. A party strives to capture elective positions by placing its
members in nomination and by campaigning for their election; in the case of appointive
posts, its efforts are directed toward persuading the appointing authority to make
selections from its membership.

A second characteristic of a political party is its intention to use governmental powers

for purposes which meet with the general approval of its leaders and the rank and file of
its membership. Usually it maintains that certain principles and policies should be
adhered to in the operation of a government. Theoretically, the ultimate objective of a
party is to secure adoption of its programmes for governmental action, whereas the
placement of its members in key governmental positions is merely an essential means
to this end. In practice it sometimes seems as if the programme is the secondary rather
than the primary objective. Generally speaking, however, one of the factors accounting
for the origin and survival of a party is some degree of consensus among its members
concerning the general way in which the powers of government ought to be exercised.
As might be expected, parties differ in regard to the unity of purpose within their
convictions on questions of principle and policy. Some parties are far doctrinaire than
others.

Since political parties strive to attain control of the machinery of government, their
programmes usually are broad enough to cover the entire area of governmental activity.
A party which confines its policy proposals to but one or two matters, such as the farm
problem and/or management-labour relations, is unlikely to be entrusted with
governmental responsibilities. Even a party which is primarily interested in one
objective, e.g., a Prohibition Party, finds it expedient to devise some sort of a
programme for dealing with other issues of concern to the general public.

Two other common characteristics of political parties are organization and durability.
Organized effort is necessary to the attainment of both the immediate and the ultimate
objectives of a party. Without some sort of organization, parties stand little chance of
winning control of the government and of directing its activities along desired lines. As
for durability, the founders of parties intend that they will continue in existence
indefinitely. Contrary to the expectations of their original sponsors, some of them may
perish after a comparatively a short lapse of time, but many of them cling tenaciously to
life and survive for many years, often for a generation or longer.

An association may fall outside the “political parties” category even though the sole
reason for its existence is the exertion of influence in the field of government. Examples
are the many taxpayers‟ leagues and the League of Women Voters in the United States
of America. An association of this type may provide its members with information
concerning governmental problems, conduct discussion groups, endorse the candidates
of various persons for elective offices, take a definite stand on some or all of the issues
of the day, and bring pressure to bear on public officials in behalf of some policy or
some change in governmental practice. But until it regularly engages in a concerted
effort to attain mastery of the government by installation of its members in key positions,
it falls short of being a political party. The same observation holds true for many other
associations, among them labour unions, manufacturers‟ associations, and associations
of veterans, which refrain from nominating their own members as candidates for public
office but commonly press for the enactment of legislation favourable to their interests
and often openly support or oppose the candidates and programmes of particular
political parties.
 APPENDIX B

* Excerpt on the discussion of the historical development of political parties, Parties and
Political Power by Duverger, M. and History of Political Parties by Boundless.com

Introduction

Party systems may be broken down into three broad categories: two-party, multiparty,
and single-party. Such a classification is based not merely on the number of parties
operating within a particular country but on a variety of distinctive features that the three
systems exhibit. Two-party and multiparty systems represent means of organizing
political conflict within pluralistic societies and are thus part of the apparatus of
democracy. Single parties usually operate in situations in which genuine political conflict
is not tolerated. This broad statement is, however, subject to qualification, for, although
single parties do not usually permit the expression of points of view that are
fundamentally opposed to the party line or ideology, there may well be intense conflict
within these limits over policy within the party itself. And even within a two-party or a
multiparty system, debate may become so stymied and a particular coalition of interests
so entrenched that the democratic process is seriously compromised.

The distinction between two-party and multiparty systems is not as easily made as it
might appear. In any two-party system there are invariably small parties in addition to
the two major parties, and there is always the possibility that a third, small party
prevents one of the two main parties from gaining a majority of seats in the legislature.
This is the case with regard to the Liberal Party in Great Britain, for example. Other
countries do not fall clearly into either category; thus, Austria and Germany only
approximate the two-party system. It is not simply a question of the number of parties
that determines the nature of the two-party system; many other elements are of
importance, the extent of party discipline in particular.

The First Political Parties: Federalists and Anti-Federalists

The winning supporters of ratification of the Constitution were called Federalists, the
opponents were called Anti-Federalists.

The Federalist Era was a period in American history from roughly 1789-1801 when the
Federalist Party was dominant in American politics. This period saw the adoption of the
United States Constitution and the expansion of the federal government. In addition, the
era saw the growth of a strong nationalistic government under the control of the
Federalist Party. Among the most important events of this period were the foreign
entanglements between France and Great Britain, the assertion of a strong centralized
federal government, and the creation of political parties. The First Party System of the
United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic- Republican Party (also
known as the Anti-Federalist Party).
The United States Constitution was written in 1787 and unanimously ratified by the
states in 1788, taking effect in 1789. The winning supporters of ratification of the
Constitution were called Federalists and the opponents were called Anti-Federalists.
The immediate problem faced by the Federalists was not simply one of acceptance of
the Constitution but the more fundamental concern of legitimacy for the government of
the new republic. With this challenge in mind, the new national government needed to
act with the idea that every act was being carried out for the first time and would
therefore have great significance and be viewed along the lines of the symbolic as well
as practical implications. The first elections to the new United States Congress returned
heavy Federalist majorities. The first Anti-Federalist movement opposed the draft
Constitution in 1788, primarily because they lacked a Bill of Rights. The Anti-
Federalists, or Democrat-Republicans, objected to the new powerful central government
and the loss of prestige for the states, and saw the Constitution as a potential threat to
personal liberties. During the ratification process the Anti-Federalists presented a
significant opposition in all but three states. A major stumbling block for the Anti-
Federalists, however, was that the supporters of the Constitution were more deeply
committed and outmaneuvered the less energetic opposition.

Rise of political parties

Federalists during the ratification period had been unified around the Constitution and
support for its form of government. Following the acceptance of the Constitution, the
initial Federalist movement faded briefly only to be taken up by a second movement
centered upon the support for Alexander Hamilton’s policies of a strong nationalist
government, loose construction of the Constitution, and mercantile economic policies.
The support around these policies eventually established the first official political party
in the United States as the Federalist Party. The Party reached its political apex with the
election of the strongly Federalist President John Adams. However the defeat of Adams
in the election of 1800 and the death of Hamilton led to the decline of the Federalist
Party from which it did not recover. While there were still Federalists after 1800, the
party never again enjoyed the power and influence it had held earlier. One of the
Federalists Era’s greatest accomplishments was that republican government survived
and took root in the United States.

Republicans, or the Democratic-Republican Party, was founded in 1792 by Jefferson

and James Madison. The party was created in order to oppose the policies of Hamilton
and the Federalist Party. In contrast to the Federalists, the Republican supported a strict
construction interpretation of the Constitution, and denounced many of Hamilton’s
proposals (especially the national bank) as unconstitutional. The party promoted states’
rights and the primacy of the yeoman farmer over bankers, industrialists, merchants,
and other monied interests. The party supported states’ rights as a measure against the
tyrannical nature of a large centralized government that they feared the Federal
government could have easily become. It would be Jefferson and the Republican Party
that would replace the Federalist Party domination of politics following the election of
1800.
Political Parties from 1800–1824

The First Party System refers to political party system existing in the United States
between roughly 1792 and 1824.

The First Party System is a model of American politics used by political scientists and
historians to periodize the political party system existing in the United States between
roughly 1792 and 1824. Rising out of the Federalist v. Anti-Federalist debates, it
featured two national parties competing for control of the presidency, Congress, and the
states: the Federalist Party, created largely by Alexander Hamilton, and the rival
Democratic-Republican Party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The
Federalists were dominant until 1800, and the Republicans were dominant after 1800.

In an analysis of the contemporary party system, Jefferson wrote on Feb. 12, 1798:
“Two political Sects have arisen within the US, the one believing that the executive is
the branch of our government which the most needs support; the other, that like the
analogous branch in the English Government, it is already too strong for the republican
parts of the Constitution; and therefore in equivocal cases they incline to the legislative
powers: the former of these are called federalists, sometimes aristocrats or monocrats,
and sometimes tories, after the corresponding sect in the English Government of
exactly the same definition: the latter are stiled republicans, whigs, jacobins, anarchists,
disorganizers, etc. these terms are in familiar use with most persons. ”

Both parties originated in national politics, but later expanded their efforts to gain
supporters and voters in every state. The Federalists appealed to the business
community, the Republicans to the planters and farmers. By 1796 politics in every state
was nearly monopolized by the two parties, with party newspapers and caucuses
becoming especially effective tools to mobilize voters.

The Federalists promoted the financial system of Treasury Secretary Hamilton, which
emphasized federal assumption of state debts, a tariff to pay off those debts, a national
bank to facilitate financing, and encouragement of banking and manufacturing. The
Republicans, based in the plantation South, opposed a strong executive power, were
hostile to a standing army and navy, demanded a limited reading of the Constitutional
powers of the federal government, and strongly opposed the Hamilton financial
program. Perhaps even more important was foreign policy, where the Federalists
favored Britain because of its political stability and its close ties to American trade, while
the Republicans admired the French and the French Revolution. Jefferson was
especially fearful that British aristocratic influences would undermine Republicanism.
Britain and France were at war from 1793 through 1815, with one brief interruption.
American policy was neutrality, with the Federalists hostile to France, and the
Republicans hostile to Britain. The Jay Treaty of 1794 marked the decisive mobilization
of the two parties and their supporters in every state. President George Washington,
while officially nonpartisan, generally supported the Federalists, and that party made
Washington their iconic hero. The First Party System ended during the Era of Good
Feelings (1816–1824), as the Federalists shrank to a few isolated strongholds and the
Republicans lost unity. In 1824-28, as the Second Party System emerged, the
Republican Party split into the Jacksonian faction, which became the modern
Democratic Party in the 1830s, and the Henry Clay faction, which was absorbed by
Clay’s Whig Party.

Jacksonian Democrats: 1824–1860

Jacksonian democracy is the political movement toward greater democracy for the
common man typified by American politician Andrew Jackson.

Jacksonian democracy is the political movement toward greater democracy for the
common man typified by American politician Andrew Jackson and his supporters.
Jackson’s policies followed the era of Jeffersonian democracy which dominated the
previous political era. The Democratic-Republican Party of the Jeffersonians became
factionalized in the 1820s. Jackson’s supporters began to form the modern Democratic
Party; they fought the rival Adams and Anti-Jacksonian factions, which soon emerged
as the Whigs.

More broadly, the term refers to the period of the Second Party System (mid-1824–
1860) when the democratic attitude was the spirit of that era. It can be contrasted with
the characteristics of Jeffersonian democracy. Jackson’s equal political policy became
known as “Jacksonian Democracy,” subsequent to ending what he termed a ” monopoly
” of government by elites. Jeffersonians opposed inherited elites but favored educated
men while the Jacksonians gave little weight to education. The Whigs were the
inheritors of Jeffersonian Democracy in terms of promoting schools and colleges.
During the Jacksonian era, the suffrage was extended to (nearly) all white male adult
citizens.

In contrast to the Jeffersonian era, Jacksonian democracy promoted the strength of the
presidency and executive branch at the expense of Congress, while also seeking to
broaden the public’s participation in government. They demanded elected (not
appointed) judges and rewrote many state constitutions to reflect the new values. In
national terms the Jacksonians favored geographical expansion, justifying it in terms of
Manifest Destiny. There was usually a consensus among both Jacksonians and Whigs
that battles over slavery should be avoided. The Jacksonian Era lasted roughly from
Jackson’s 1828 election until the slavery issue became dominant after 1850 and the
American Civil War dramatically reshaped American politics as the Third Party System
emerged.

Jacksonian democracy was built on the following general principles:

Expanded Suffrage

The Jacksonians believed that voting rights should be extended to all white men. By
1820, universal white male suffrage was the norm, and by 1850 nearly all requirements
to own property or pay taxes had been dropped.

Manifest Destiny

This was the belief that white Americans had a destiny to settle the American West and
to expand control from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific and that the West should be
settled by yeoman farmers. However, the Free Soil Jacksonians, notably Martin Van
Buren, argued for limitations on slavery in the new areas to enable the poor white man
to flourish; they split with the main party briefly in 1848. The Whigs generally opposed
Manifest Destiny and expansion, saying the nation should build up its cities.

Patronage

Also known as the spoils system, patronage was the policy of placing political
supporters into appointed offices. Many Jacksonians held the view that rotating political
appointees in and out of office was not only the right but also the duty of winners in
political contests. Patronage was theorized to be good because it would encourage
political participation by the common man and because it would make a politician more
accountable for poor government service by his appointees. Jacksonians also held that
long tenure in the civil service was corrupting, so civil servants should be rotated out of
office at regular intervals. However, it often led to the hiring of incompetent and
sometimes corrupt officials due to the emphasis on party loyalty above any other
qualifications.

Strict Constructionism

Like the Jeffersonians who strongly believed in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions,
Jacksonians initially favored a federal government of limited powers. Jackson said that
he would guard against “all encroachments upon the legitimate sphere of State
sovereignty”. This is not to say that Jackson was a states’ rights extremist; indeed, the
Nullification Crisis would find Jackson fighting against what he perceived as state
encroachments on the proper sphere of federal influence. This position was one basis
for the Jacksonians’ opposition to the Second Bank of the United States. As the
Jacksonians consolidated power, they more often advocated expanding federal power
and presidential power in particular.

Laissez-faire Economics

Complementing a strict construction of the Constitution, the Jacksonians generally

favored a hands-off approach to the economy, as opposed to the Whig program
sponsoring modernization, railroads, banking, and economic growth. The leader was
William Leggett of the Locofocos in New York City.

Banking

In particular, the Jacksonians opposed government-granted monopolies to banks,

especially the national bank, a central bank known as the Second Bank of the United
States. Despite this, Jackson did not actively seek to destroy or fight the Bank, only
vetoing the Bank’s recharter and subsequently pulling out federal reserves. The Whigs,
who strongly supported the Bank, were led by Daniel Webster and Nicholas Biddle, the
bank chairman. Jackson himself was opposed to all banks, because he believed they
were devices to cheat common people; he and many followers believed that only gold
and silver could be money

The Golden Age: 1860–1932

Despite outward indicators of prosperity, the Gilded Age (late 1860s to 1896) was an
era characterized by turmoil and political contention.

In United States history, the Gilded Age was the period following the Civil War, running
from the late 1860s to about 1896 when the next era began, the Progressive Era. The
term was coined by writers Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner in The Gilded Age:
A Tale of Today, which satirized what they believed to be an era of serious social
problems obscured by a thin veneer of prosperity.
The Gilded Age was a time of enormous growth that attracted millions of European
immigrants. Railroads were the major industry, but the factory system, mining, and labor
unions also gained in importance. Despite the growth, there was serious cause for
concern, which manifested in two major nationwide depressions, known as the Panic of
1873 and the Panic of 1893. Furthermore, most of the growth and prosperity came in
the North and West – states that had been part of the Union. States in the South, part of
the defeated Confederate States of America, remained economically devastated; their
economies became increasingly tied to cotton and tobacco production, which suffered
low prices. African Americans in the south experienced the worst setbacks, as they
were stripped of political power and voting rights.

During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy rose at the fastest rate in its history,
with real wages, wealth, gross domestic product (GDP), and capital formation all
increasing rapidly. Between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%,
corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%. Thick national
networks for transportation and communication were created. The corporation became
the dominant form of business organization, and a managerial revolution transformed
business operations. By the beginning of the 20th century, per capita income and
industrial production in the United States led the world, with per capita incomes double
that of Germany or France, and 50% higher than Britain.

Politics in the Gilded Age

Gilded Age politics, called the Third Party System, were characterized by rampant
corruption and intense competition between the two parties (with minor parties coming
and going), especially on issues of Prohibitionist, labor unions and farmers. The
Democrats and Republicans fought over control of offices as well as major economic
issues. The dominant political issues included rights for African Americans, tariff policies
and monetary policies. Reformers worked for civil service reform, prohibition and
women’s suffrage, while philanthropists built colleges and hospitals, and the many
religious denominations exerted a major sway in both politics and everyday life.

Voter turnout was very high and often exceeded 80% or even 90% in some states as
the parties were adamant about rallying their loyal supporters. Competition was intense
and elections were very close. In the South, lingering resentment over the Civil War
meant that most states would vote Democrat. After the end of Reconstruction in 1877,
competition in the South took place mainly inside the Democratic Party. Nationwide,
voter turnout fell sharply after 1900.

The Third Party System (1854-1890s)

The Third Party System lasted from about 1854 to the mid-1890s, and featured
profound developments in issues of nationalism, modernization, and race. It was
dominated by the new Republican Party (also known as the Grand Old Party or GOP),
which claimed success in saving the Union, abolishing slavery and enfranchising the
freedmen, while adopting many Whiggish modernization programs such as national
banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads, social spending (such as on greater Civil War
veteran pension funding), and aid to land grant colleges. While most elections from
1874 through 1892 were extremely close, the opposition Democrats won only the 1884
and 1892 presidential elections. The northern and western states were largely
Republican, save for closely balanced New York, Indiana, New Jersey, and
Connecticut. After 1874, the Democrats took control of the “Solid South. ”

The Fourth Party System (1896-1932)

The Fourth Party System lasted from about 1896 to 1932, and was dominated by the
Republican Party, excepting the 1912 split in which Democrats held the White House for
eight years. American history texts usually call it the Progressive Era, and it included
World War I and the start of the Great Depression. The period featured a transformation
from the issues of the Third Party System, instead focusing on domestic issues such as
regulation of railroads and large corporations (“trusts”), the money issue (gold versus
silver), the protective tariff, the role of labor unions, child labor, the need for a new
banking system, corruption in party politics, primary elections, direct election of
senators, racial segregation, efficiency in government, women’s suffrage, and control of
immigration. Foreign policy centered on the 1898 Spanish-American War, Imperialism,
the Mexican Revolution, World War I, and the creation of the League of Nations.

The Modern Era of Political Parties

Modern politics in the United States is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic
Party and the Republican Party.

These two parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and
have controlled the United States Congress since at least 1856.

The Democratic Party, since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912,
has positioned itself as progressive and supporting labor in economic as well as social
matters.

Today, the Republican Party supports an American conservative platform, with further
foundations in economic liberalism, fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism.

 Democratic Party: The Democratic Party is one of two major political parties in
the United States.
 Republican Party: The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary
political parties in the United States of America.
 two-party system: A two-party system is a system where two major political
parties dominate voting in nearly all elections at every level of government and, as
a result, nearly all elected officials are members of one of the two major parties.
 APPENDIX C

* Excerpt on the discussion of Political Ideologies, Ideology: Political Aspects by

Freeden, M. (2001) and Major Political Ideologies by SparkNotes Editors, (2005)

What is Political Ideology?

A political ideology is a set of ideas, beliefs, values, and opinions, exhibiting a recurring
pattern, that competes deliberately as well as unintentionally over providing plans of
action for public policy making in an attempt to justify, explain, contest, or change the
social and political arrangements and processes of a political community. The concept
of ideology is subject to partly incompatible conceptual interpretations. The Marxist
tradition views it pejoratively as distorted consciousness, reflecting an exploitative
material reality, that can be overcome through unmasking; or, more recently, as a
fictitious narrative necessary to maintaining the social order. Non-Marxist approaches
split into three perspectives. The first sees ideology as abstract, closed and doctrinaire,
largely impervious to empirical evidence and superimposed on a society. The second
sees ideology as a series of empirically ascertainable attitudes towards political issues
that can be explored by means of behavioral methods. The third views ideologies as
indispensable mapping devices of cultural symbols and political concepts that constitute
a crucial resource for understanding and shaping sociopolitical life. They compete over
the ‗correct‘ and legitimate meanings of political words and ideas, and by means of that
control, over the high ground of politics.

A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it
should be used. Some political parties follow a certain ideology very closely while others
may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically
embracing any one of them. The popularity of an ideology is in part due to the influence
of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in their own interests. Political ideologies
have two dimensions: (1) goals: how society should be organized; and (2) methods: the
most appropriate way to achieve this goal.

Over the millennia, political philosophers have expounded on a variety of political

ideologies, or ways governments and societies can be organized. Today, several
political ideologies have been discovered but we will be focusing on six common
political ideologies, namely:

 Anarchism
 Absolutism
 Liberalism
 Libertarianism
 Conservatism
 Socialism
Anarchism

The belief that the best government is absolutely no government is known

as Anarchism. This ideology argues that everything about governments is repressive
and therefore must be abolished entirely. A related ideology known
as Nihilism emphasizes that everything—both government and society—must be
periodically destroyed in order to start anew. Nihilists often categorically reject
traditional concepts of morality in favor of violence and terror. Anarchism and nihilism
were once associated with socialism because many anarchists and nihilists supported
the socialists‘ call for revolution and the complete overhaul of government and society in
the early to mid-twentieth century.

Example: Although neither violent nor strictly anarchist, members of the American
Libertarian Party believe that government should be so small that it hardly ever
interferes in citizens’ lives, thereby best preserving individual liberty.

Russia has had a long association with anarchism and nihilism. Many prominent
members of both movements were Russian, including Mikhail Bakunin, considered the
father of anarchism. Russian nihilists engaged in a number of terrorist attacks in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including the assassination of Czar Alexander
II in 1881.

Absolutism

Traditionally, much of Western civilization‘s history was dominated by Absolutism, the

belief that a single ruler should have control over every aspect of the government and of
the people‘s lives. Absolute rulers had a variety of titles, including chieftain, king, shah,
pharaoh, emperor, sultan, and prince. In some cultures, the absolute ruler was seen as
a god in human form. Other peoples believed that their ruler had the Divine Right Of
Kings, meaning that God had chosen the ruler to govern the rest. As a result, many
cultures with absolute rulers practiced some form of Caesaropapism, the belief that the
ruler is head of both the governmental authority and the religious authority.

Example: In the Byzantine Empire, the double-headed eagle symbolized

caesaropapism. The two heads stood for church and state. This symbol clearly and
graphically portrayed the unity of religious and secular power in one person.

Absolutism emphasizes:

A Strong Sense Of Order: Everything should be carefully structured, including society.

Disorder and chaos are generally considered to be dangerous.
A Clear-Cut Law Of Nature (Or Law Of God): This law must be obeyed. According to
this law, some people are inherently better than others. A natural Hierarchy (a power
structure in which some people have authority over others) exists. Therefore, the
superior should rule the inferior. This general view is called Elitism, or Elite Theory.
The Wisdom Of Traditional Values And Institutions: New ideas are considered
dangerous to the order of things.

Liberalism

In the early modern age of the Western world (beginning roughly in the early 1500s and
running for about 200 years), a number of changes occurred that led to new ideologies:
The European discovery of the Americas, the rise of Protestantism, the beginnings of
the free-market economy, and the early stages of the scientific revolution fundamentally
altered Europe. People began developing different ways of thinking to take account of
these changes.

Perhaps the most important of the new ideas is Liberalism (also known as Classical
Liberalism). This type of liberalism, which began in England in the 1600s, differs from
American liberalism. Classical liberalism developed when such thinkers as John Locke
(in his Second Treatise of Government in 1690) rethought the relationship between the
individual and society, as well theorized about the rights and responsibilities of the
individual. These ideas formed the foundation for many political systems still operating
today.

Liberal Beliefs

Individualism: The individual takes priority over society.

Freedom: Individuals have the right to make choices for themselves. This freedom is not
absolute, and some behaviors, such as murder, are prohibited. Freedom of religion is a
particularly important freedom to come out of liberalism because so many governments
at the time were very closely tied to a particular religious creed.
Equality: No person is morally or politically superior to others. Hierarchies are rejected.
Rationalism: Humans are capable of thinking logically and rationally. Logic and reason
help us solve problems.
Progress: Traditions should not be kept unless they have value. New ideas are helpful
because they can lead to progress in the sciences, the economy, and society.
The Free Market: Liberalism and capitalism go hand in hand. Liberals like the free
market because it more easily creates wealth, as opposed to traditional economies,
which often have extensive regulations and limits on which occupations people can
hold.

These basic characteristics of liberalism have led liberals to argue in favor of a limited
government, which draws its power from the people. In practice, this has meant favoring
a democratic government.

Example: For centuries, Eastern Europe suffered greatly from authoritarian rule, in
which one person or a small group holds all the political power and oppresses
everybody else. As recently as 1989, open discussion of liberal ideas (such as the free
market) or publicly complaining that the communist governments did not speak for the
people could get a person arrested. The writer Vaclav Havel, for example, was jailed by
the Czechoslovakian government. But after the 1989 end of the communist government
in Czechoslovakia, Havel served as the newly democratic government’s first president.

Libertarianism

Libertarianism is a family of views in political philosophy. Libertarians strongly value

individual freedom and see this as justifying strong protections for individual freedom.
Thus, libertarians insist that justice poses stringent limits to coercion. While people can
be justifiably forced to do certain things (most obviously, to refrain from violating the
rights of others) they cannot be coerced to serve the overall good of society, or even
their own personal good. As a result, libertarians endorse strong rights to individual
liberty and private property; defend civil liberties like equal rights for homosexuals;
endorse drug decriminalization, open borders, and oppose most military interventions.
Libertarian positions are most controversial in the realm of distributive justice. In this
context, libertarians typically endorse something like a free-market economy: an
economic order based on private property and voluntary market relationships among
agents. Libertarians usually see the kind of large-scale, coercive wealth redistribution in
which contemporary welfare states engage as involving unjustified coercion. The same
is true of many forms of economic regulation, including licensing laws. Just as people
have strong rights to individual freedom in their personal and social affairs, libertarians
argue, they also have strong rights to freedom in their economic affairs. Thus, rights of
freedom of contract and exchange, freedom of occupation, and private property are
taken very seriously.
In these respects, libertarian theory is closely related to (indeed, at times practically
indistinguishable from) the classical liberal tradition, as embodied by John Locke, David
Hume, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant. It affirms a strong distinction between the
public and the private spheres of life; insists on the status of individuals as morally free
and equal, something it interprets as implying a strong requirement of individuals
sovereignty; and believes that a respect for this status requires treating people as right-
holders, including as holders of rights in property.
It is popular to label libertarianism as a right-wing doctrine. But this is mistaken. For one,
on social (rather than economic) issues, libertarianism implies what are commonly
considered left-wing views. And second, there is a subset of so-called ―left-libertarian‖
theories. While all libertarians endorse similar rights over the person, left-libertarians
differ from other libertarians with respect to how much people can appropriate in terms
of unowned natural resources (land, air, water, minerals, etc.). While virtually all
libertarians hold that there is some constraint on how resources can be appropriated,
left-libertarians insist that this constraint has a distinctively egalitarian character. It might
require, for instance, that people who appropriate natural resources make payments to
others in proportion to the value of their possessions. – Vossen, B. (2019).
Libertarianism.
Classical Conservatism and Democracy

Many early conservatives favored authoritarian government. In the aftermath of the

Napoleonic Wars (roughly 1792–1815), for example, most European governments
actively worked to stop the spread of liberalism and democracy. Nevertheless,
conservatives were not necessarily hostile to democracy. Generally these conservatives
argued that some sort of monarchy was necessary, but some were more open to
popular government. Burke, in particular, thought that limited democracy was a good
form of government for England, as long as it maintained the customs and mores it
inherited from its predecessors.

Classical Conservatism Today

For the most part, classical conservatism has faded. Most people who label themselves
conservatives are more like American conservatives than classical ones. But there are
still some classical conservatives. Many of them in Europe have ties to old noble
families, and some advocate monarchism. Classical conservatives can also be found in
other parts of the world.

Classical Conservatism Beliefs

 Repository of acquired wisdom; collection of best knowledge from many years of

practice.
 Excessive freedom is bad; lets people ignore societal responsibilities and
overlook social customs.
 Thinks reason is fallible and prone to error; human beings cannot discover the
best way to govern through thinking. Instead, we must base our judgments and
decisions on experience.
 It is dangerous because it breaks down traditional economic roles. The profit
motive corrodes customary mores and reduces all relationships to cash
transactions.
Socialism
Socialism arose as a response to the Industrial Revolution, which was the emergence of
technologies such as the steam engine and mass production. The Industrial Revolution
started in England in the last years of the eighteenth century and had spread to much of
Europe and America by the end of the nineteenth century. It caused major upheavals: In
a very short time, many people were forced to abandon agricultural ways of life for the
modern mechanized world of factories.
Early versions of socialism were put forward in Europe in the first part of the nineteenth
century (these versions are often dubbed ―utopian socialism‖), but truly influential
socialist theories did not emerge until industrialization expanded in the mid-nineteenth
century. Karl Marx is the best-known theorist of socialism. Along with Friedrich Engels,
Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) as a call to revolution. Other prominent
socialists thinkers included Karl Kautsky, Vladimir Lenin, and Antonio Gramsci.
Socialist Beliefs
Collectivism: Human beings are social by nature, and society should respect this.
Individualism is poisonous.
Public Ownership: Society, not individuals, should own the property.
Central Economic Planning: The government plans the economy; there is no free
market.
Economic Equality: All citizens have roughly the same level of prosperity.
 APPENDIX D

Introduction
In this module, you will explore and analyze some of the political parties in the
Philippines and learn about their general characteristics and platforms. You will have
the opportunity to evaluate and reflect on the different political parties existing today in
our country.
The Philippines has a multi-party system with numerous political parties, in which no
one party often has a chance of gaining power alone, and parties must work with each
other to form coalition governments for political expediency and convenience. Since no
political parties have sustaining membership to which party leaders are developed, most
of the political parties have the rise-and-fall-and-rise character.
There are three types of parties in the Philippines. These are: (a) major parties, which
typically correspond to traditional political parties; (b) minor parties or party-list
organizations, which rely on the party-list system to win Congressional seats; and (c)
regional or provincial parties, which correspond to region-wide or province-wide
organizations, respectively.

Major Parties

Political Party Abbreviation Leader Founded Ideology

Name
Partido PDP-Laban Aquilino 1983 Democratic
Demokratiko Pimentel III socialism
Pilipino-Lakas
ng Bayan
Nationalist NP Manuel Villar, 1907 Conservatism
Party Jr.
Nationalist NPC Eduardo 1992 Social
People's Cojuangco, Jr. conservatism
Coalition
Minor Parties

Political Party Abbreviation Leader Founded Ideology

Name
National Unity NUP Roberto Puno 2011 Social
Party conservatism
Laban ng LDP Sonny Angara 1988 Big Tent
Demokratikong
Pilipino
Akbayan Akbayan Risa Hontiveros 1998 Progressivism

Party-lists represented in Congress

Political Party Name Abbreviation Ideology/Sector

Anti-Crime and Terrorism Community ACT-CIS Counterterrorism
Involvement and Support Partylist

Bayan Muna Bayan Muna Democratic socialism

Ako Bicol Political Party AKB Bicolano ethnic interests

Political Party Name Ideology/Platform

Partido Demokratiko
Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan
PDP-LABAN seeks a peaceful and democratic way of life
characterized by "freedom, solidarity, justice, equity,
social responsibility, self-reliance, efficiency and
enlightened nationalism". It has touted as its five guiding
principles the following: theism, authentic humanism,
enlightened nationalism, democratic socialism, and
consultative and participatory democracy

The party advocates a transition to a federal, semi-

Nationalist Party
presidential parliamentary form of government from the
current unitary presidential system through a revision of
the present 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
The Nacionalista Party was initially created as a Filipino
nationalist party that supported Philippine independence
until 1946 when the United States granted independence
to the country. Since then, many scholarly articles that
dealt with the history of political parties during the Third
Republic agreed that the party has been increasingly
populist, although some argued they had conservative
tendencies because of their opposition to the Liberal Party
 and the Progressive Party.
National Unity Party (NUP) According to the party's constitution, NUP's principles
include the following: belief in God; sovereignty of the
state, national interest and democracy; social justice and
responsibility; and environmental awareness.
Laban ng Demokratikong The party is characterized by advocating the principles of
Pilipino democracy or social equality by representing ideas that
are beneficial to the people at large.
Akbayan The Akbayan Citizens' Action Party, better known as
Akbayan, is a democratic socialist and progressive
political party in the Philippines. Akbayan is noted as a
leading member of the democratic left in the Philippines,
which consists of moderate leftist groups who are not
affiliated with the more radical Communist Party of the
Philippines.

The party was founded by Joel Rocamora in the 1990s

after he left the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)
over ideological differences with its founder and leader,
Jose Maria Sison. Sison maintained a commitment within
the Communist Party of the Philippines to Marxist–
Leninist-Maoist principles, which some members,
including Rocamora, disagreed with.
Anti-Crime and Terrorism The party-list system was created so that organizations
Community Involvement can represent marginalized groups or causes in
and Support Partylist Congress. ACT-CIS says its goal is to support President
Rodrigo Duterte’s anti-crime platform.
Bayan Muna Bayan Muna (literally, "Nation First") is a party-list in the
Philippines, a member of the leftist political party
Makabayan. The motto of the party is "New Politics, the
Politics of Change", against "traditional, elitist, pro-
imperialist politics". Its platform includes the advocation of
a government that progressively supports the working
class, with meaningful representation of all democratic
sectors in the Philippines.
Ako Bicol AKB is a movement composed of individuals who are
either residents of the Bicol Region, born of Bicolano
parents, have resided in Bicol or simply interested in the
promotion of the welfare and interests of the region and its
people, collectively known as “Bicolanos,” with the aim to
unite Bicolanos to work in the development of the Bicol
Region through programs and projects that will combat
poverty, provide adequate social services, promote full
employment, guarantee social justice and full respect for
human rights, recognize the sanctity of human life,
improve delivery of health services, democratize access
to education and training, protect the environment,
enhance disaster preparedness and advance the
participation of youth, women, gays and lesbians and
physically challenged individuals as well senior citizens in
nation building.

AKB also endeavors to instill confidence and foster

patriotism among Bicolanos through the promotion of
Bicol history, arts and culture, appreciation of the role of
Bicolano heroes, national figures and other role models in
the historical and cultural development of the region and
strengthening the inherent resiliency of Bicolanos amidst
adversities but at the same time, minimizing and if not
totally eradicating, perceived attitudes and values which
tend to hamper progress and development
 APPENDIX E

* Excerpt on the discussion of Power, Resistance, and Ideology, Identity Politics by

Cressida H. (2018) and What is Political Resistance? An exploration of the word and its
political connotations by Scheuerman, W. (2017).

Power

The focal point of the study of political institutions is power and its uses. Although we
think of the concept of power as being associated particularly with politics or so as to
say political science, but it is, in fact, exists in all types of social relationships. For
Foucault (1969), „power relationships are present in all aspects of society.

They go right down into the depths of society…. They are not localized in the relations
between the state, and its citizens, or on the frontiers between classes‟. All social
actions involve power relationships whether it may be between employer and employee
or between husband and wife (in patriarchal society). It is the ability to exercise one‟s
will over others or, in other words, power is the ability of individuals or groups to make
their own interests or concerns count, even when others resist.

It sometimes involves the direct use of force. Force is the actual or threatened use of
coercion to impose one‟s will on others. When a father slaps the child to prohibit certain
acts, he is applying force. Some scholars have defined it that it necessarily involves
overcoming another‟s will.

According to Max Weber (1947), power is „the probability that one actor within a social
relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless
of the basis on which this probability rests‟.

He further writes, positions of power can ‟emerge from social relations in drawing room
as well as in the market, from the rostrum of lecture hall as well as the command post of
a regiment, from an erotic or charitable relationship as well as from scholarly discussion
or athletics‟. It plays a part in family (husband and wife) and school (teacher and the
taught) relationship also.

Thus, for Weber, power is the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own
will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in
the action.

Power is the ability to influence the behavior of others to get what you want. Gerald
Salancik and Jeffery Pfeffer concur, noting, “Power is simply the ability to get things
done the way one wants them to be done.”Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1989).

Power is frequently defined by political scientists as the ability to influence the behavior
of others with or without resistance. The term authority is often used for power
perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust, but
the exercise of power is accepted as endemic to humans as social beings. The use of
power need not involve coercion, force or the threat of force. At one extreme, power
closely resembles what English speakers call “influence”, although some authors make
a distinction between the two.

The sociological examination of power involves discovering and describing the relative
strengths: equal or unequal; stable or subject to periodic change. Sociologists usually
analyze relationships in which parties have relatively equal or nearly equal power in
terms of constraint rather than of power. Thus power has a connotation of unilateralism.
If this were not so, then all relationships could be described in terms of power, and its
meaning would be lost.

Power may derive from a number of sources, including social class (material wealth can
equal power), resource currency (material items such as money, property, food),
personal or group charisma, ascribed power (acting on perceived or assumed abilities,
whether these bear testing or not), social influence of tradition (compare ascribed
power), etc.

People use more than rewards, threats and information to influence others. In everyday
situations, people use a variety of power tactics to push or prompt others into particular
action. There are many examples of power tactics that are quite common and employed
every day. Some of these tactics include bullying, collaboration, complaining, criticizing,
and demanding, disengaging, evading, humor, inspiring, manipulating, negotiating,
socializing and supplicating. Recent experimental psychology suggests that the more
power one has the less one takes on the perspective of others, implying that the
powerful have less empathy.

Resistance

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, anarchists and others married it to ideas
of radical — and probably forceful — political and social change. (Socialists and
communists, in contrast, generally preferred the term revolution, in part probably
because of their adulation for 1789 and the French Revolution). More recently, the term
has made appearances in an odd variety of political contexts. The French Resistance
waged guerrilla warfare against the Nazis and their quislings. At mid-century,
aficionados of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. described their efforts
as nonviolent resistance, a usage even today widespread among proponents of
nonviolence. Reactionary southern whites, led by Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd,
infamously responded to Dr. King and others with what they dubbed massive
resistance. Their idea of resistance, as we know, did not prove nearly as conscientious
or nonviolent as Dr. King‟s.

The term resistance has always been ambiguous. It has referred to both violent and
nonviolent political action, acts aiming at a fundamental and perhaps revolutionary
overhaul of existing society, and those seeking to preserve or reestablish the status
quo. Revealingly, the original title of Thoreau‟s famous essay, “Resistance to Civil
Government,” was changed to “Civil Disobedience” by an editor who thought it too
radical. For Thoreau, at any rate, resistance was an individual moral but not a collective
political act. Like Thoreau, those pursuing resistance have widely been considered
dangerous or at least irresponsible lawbreakers. Yet the lawbreakers themselves often
saw things differently: even in medieval Europe, tyrannicide was conventionally
interpreted as reinstalling a lawful and morally legitimate royal order.

A resistance movement is an organized effort by some portion of the civil population of

a country to withstand the legally established government or an occupying power and to
disrupt civil order and stability. It may seek to achieve its objectives through either the
use of nonviolent resistance (sometimes called civil resistance), or the use of force,
whether armed or unarmed. In many cases, as for example in Norway in the Second
World War, a resistance movement may employ both violent and non-violent methods,
usually operating under different organizations and acting in different phases or
geographical areas within a country.

Identity

Identity politics is when people of a particular race, ethnicity, gender, or religion form
alliances and organize politically to defend their group‟s interests. The feminist
movement, the civil rights movement, and the gay liberation movement are all examples
of this kind of political organizing.

The second half of the twentieth century saw the emergence of large-scale political
movements—second wave feminism, Black Civil Rights in the U.S., gay and lesbian
liberation, and the American Indian movements, for example—based in claims about
the injustices done to particular social groups. These social movements are undergirded
by and foster a philosophical body of literature that takes up questions about the nature,
origin and futures of the identities being defended. Identity politics as a mode of
organizing is intimately connected to the idea that some social groups are oppressed;
that is, that one's identity as a woman or as a Native American, for example, makes one
peculiarly vulnerable to cultural imperialism (including stereotyping, erasure, or
appropriation of one's group identity), violence, exploitation, marginalization, or
powerlessness (Young 1990). Identity politics starts from analyses of oppression to
recommend, variously, the reclaiming, redescription, or transformation of previously
stigmatized accounts of group membership. Rather than accepting the negative scripts
offered by a dominant culture about one's own inferiority, one transforms one's own
sense of self and community, often through consciousness-raising.
 APPENDIX F

*Excerpt on the discussion of political ecology and the environmental social movements,
Introduction to Sociology by Little, W. et.al. (2020)

Introduction
Political ecology analyses the complexity of social and environmental change as some
thing produced by intersecting and conflicting economic, social, and ecological
processes operating at different scales. Political ecology as an analytical framework
originated in the 19705 with a paper by Eric Wolf is seen as the earliest work of
political ecology.

The multidisciplinary, multilevel scope of political ecology has been used as a

rubric to explain environmental degradation or environmental change, and to
understand their significance for different groups within society. Political ecology
approach is an inquiry into the political sources, conditions and ramification of
environmental change while embracing different social and ecological scales, and
relates to inter-related research areas? The other influential book in the growth of
political ecology by Blaikie, Piers and Harold Brookfield argued for the deeper causes
of land degradation was more in the social problem rather in terms of characteristics
of soil, geology and climate and purely physical constraints of natural sciences.
Political ecology is grounded less in a coherent theory and seek to integrate its
analysis and encompasses a wide variety of interpretations drawn from ideological
spectrum from the political right (Neo-classical thought) to the political left (NeoMarxism)
based on ideas drawn from political economy. Balikie and Brookfield has
suggested that third world political ecology is about the combined "concerns of
ecology and broadly defined political economy". Political ecology argues for
consideration of environmental degradation within its 'historical, political and
economic context' as well as its ecological one.

Political Ecology and the environment social movements

Political ecology explores the complexities by taking into account the
contextual sources of environmental impacts of the state and its policies, inter state
relations and global capitalism.

Social movements are purposeful, organized groups striving to work toward a common
social goal. While most of us learned about social movements in history classes, we
tend to take for granted the fundamental changes they caused —and we may be
completely unfamiliar with the trend toward global social movement. But from the anti-
tobacco movement that has worked to outlaw smoking in public buildings and raise the
cost of cigarettes, to uprisings throughout the Arab world, contemporary movements
create social change on a global scale.
Types of Social Movements
We know that social movements can occur on the local, national, or even global stage.
Are there other patterns or classifications that can help us understand them? Sociologist
David Aberle (1966) addresses this question, developing categories that distinguish
among social movements based on what they want to change and how much change
they want. Reform movements seek to change something specific about the social
structure. Examples include anti-nuclear groups, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
(MADD), and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC).
Revolutionary movements seek to completely change every aspect of society. These
would include Cuban 26th of July Movement (under Fidel Castro), the 1960s
counterculture movement, as well as anarchist collectives. Redemptive movements are
“meaning seeking,” and their goal is to provoke inner change or spiritual growth in
individuals. Organizations pushing these movements might include Alcoholics
Anynymous, New Age, or Christian fundamentalist groups. Alternative movements are
focused on self-improvement and limited, specific changes to individual beliefs and
behaviour. These include groups like the Slow Food movement, Planned Parenthood,
and barefoot jogging advocates. Resistance movements seek to prevent or undo
change to the social structure. The Ku Klux Klan and pro-life movements fall into this
category.
Stages of Social Movements
Later sociologists studied the life cycle of social movements—how they emerge, grow,
and in some cases, die out. Blumer (1969) and Tilly (1978) outline a four-stage process.
In the preliminary stage, people become aware of an issue and leaders emerge. This is
followed by the coalescence stage when people join together and organize in order to
publicize the issue and raise awareness. In the institutionalization stage, the movement
no longer requires grassroots volunteerism: it is an established organization, typically
peopled with a paid staff. When people fall away, adopt a new movement, the
movement successfully brings about the change it sought, or people no longer take the
issue seriously, the movement falls into the decline stage.
 APPENDIX G
Required reading:
How Protests Become Successful Social Movements
by Greg Satell and Srdja Popovic (2017)

Throughout history, social movements — small groups that are loosely connected but
united by a shared purpose — have created transformational change. Women‟s
suffrage and civil rights in the U.S., Indian independence, the color revolutions in
Eastern Europe, and the Arab Spring all hinged on the powerless banding together
against the powerful.

In these movements, protest has played an important role, highlighting the ability for
ordinary citizens to make their disapproval heard. This type of activism is crucial for
creating the groundwork for change. Consider the recent protests in Poland concerning
an unpopular abortion law. They inspired millions to take further actions, including a
women‟s strike, that convinced lawmakers to back down.

Still, protests like the massive global marches that took place on January 21, 2017,
although crucially important for creating transformational change, are merely a first step.
There are clear reasons why some movements languish and fade away while others
succeed, and activists need to take history‟s lessons to heart. To truly make an impact,
a movement needs to follow five steps:

Step 1: Define the change you want to see

To create the change you want to see, you have to make an affirmative case and define
exactly what you want to happen.

Clearly defining change is a consistent theme in successful movements. Gandhi wanted

independence from the British. The civil rights movement wanted specific legislation
passed. The color revolutions wanted a change in leadership. These were all tangible
goals that they could build a strategy around.

In Serbia‟s Bulldozer Revolution, which one of the authors helped lead, the objective
was to rid the country of dictator Slobodan Milošević. Full stop. No equivocations. What
was the point of the women‟s marches? Was it to remove Donald Trump from power?
Are specific policies being opposed and others being advocated for? Those who
marched with such enthusiasm need to ask themselves, “If you could wave magic wand
and create change, what specifically would happen?”

The need for a clearly stated purpose becomes glaringly obvious when you look at
unsuccessful movements. For example, as Joe Nocera noted, the Occupy movement
“had plenty of grievances, aimed mainly at the „oppressive‟ power of corporations,” but
“never got beyond their own slogans.” It‟s not enough to point out what you don‟t like —
you need a clear idea of what you want instead.
A revolution doesn‟t begin with a slogan, but with a clear vision of the change you want
to see. That doesn‟t mean you need to be rigid. You are not trying to impose your
vision; you are sharing it, you are listening, and you are respectful to those who don‟t
hold the same views as you. But above all, you are clear and everybody knows where
you stand.

Step 2: Shift the spectrum of allies

Once you have clearly defined the change you want to happen, you need to start
examining your spectrum of allies. Figure out whom you can expect active or passive
support from and who will offer neutrality at best — or active or passive opposition at
worst. As Sun Tzu wrote, “Know yourself, know your enemy, and know the terrain.” The
spectrum of allies is the terrain.

Successful movements don‟t overpower their opponents; they gradually undermine their
opponents‟ support. Start at the receptive end of your spectrum, working your way
through higher and higher thresholds of resistance. In other words, begin by mobilizing
your active allies and core supporters. Reach out to passive supporters, and then bring
neutral groups over to your side. Once you start winning over the passive opposition,
you‟re on the brink of victory.

For example, in the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. and his contemporaries
started by mobilizing Southern blacks, but then shifted to bringing Northern whites over
to their cause. And when Harvey Milk began the LGBT movement, he started with gay
people on Castro Street, but then continued to the straight liberals in the San Francisco
Bay area. Colonel John Boyd, the military reformer who helped change the way the
Pentagon functions, pursued a similar path, first preparing briefings for junior officers,
and then congressional staffers, and then elected officials, and finally the top generals.

The path to victory is not to create a coalition through awkward comprises, but rather to
expound on your values with such clarity that you persuade others to join your cause.
Empires fall not because people oppose them, but because they find their support
eroded. To win, you need to convince others to defect.

Step 3: Identify the pillars of power

While it is crucial to recruit allies from up and down the spectrum of support, it is also
important to identify the institutions that have the power to implement the change you
seek. These “pillars of power” can be the police, the media, the education system,
government agencies, or other organizations. As important as popular support is to a
movement, without institutional support, little is likely to change.

In Serbia, the revolutionary group Otpor saw arrests not merely as an act of defiance,
but as an opportunity to build positive relations with the police. In fact, protesters were
trained to defend officers from any provocation within their own ranks. In the end, when
the police had to decide whether to shoot into crowds or join the movement‟s ranks,
they chose the latter.
Which stakeholders inside or outside the halls of power have the ability to implement or
resist change? What are their incentives? How can they benefit or be hurt by the
change you seek? These are all things you need to consider.

Step 4: Seek to attract, not to overpower

Every movement seeks to correct some injustice, so it‟s easy to fall into the trap of
demonizing the other side. Yet this is where many movements go off the rails. Anger is
an effective mobilizer, but anger without hope is a destructive force. You need to make
an affirmative case with affirmative tactics.

That‟s why it‟s best to start with small, achievable goals. Gandhi‟s allies questioned his
idea to make the salt tax a primary focus of the Indian independence movement,
because they favored a plan for comprehensive change, but he saw that a single issue,
even a small one, could unify the nation and break British Raj‟s monopoly on power.

Cheap, easy-to-replicate, low-risk tactics are the most likely to succeed. They are how
you can mobilize the numbers you need to influence a pillar of power, whether that
influence is disruption, mobilizing, or pulling people from the middle of the spectrum of
allies, especially if your tactics are seen as positive and good-humored.

Blocking streets and throwing rocks at the police is most likely to turn off those in the
middle of your spectrum of allies and will make it decidedly more difficult to gain support
from the institutions inside the pillars of power. During the 2016 U.S. presidential
election, for example, the “Bernie bros” may have riled up Bernie Sanders‟s most ardent
supporters, but they likely turned off many that he desperately needed to win over.

Step 5: Build a plan to survive victory

Ironically, one of the most dangerous stages of a revolution is just after victory has been
won. In Ukraine‟s 2004 Orange Revolution, the incoming team was unable to create a
unified, effective government, and soon the country devolved into chaos once again.
Secular protesters prevailed in Egypt in 2011, but it was the Muslim Brotherhood that
won the elections that followed.

It‟s important not to confuse the movement for change with the values that the
movement seeks to represent. Just because you win an election or get a program
approved and funded doesn‟t mean it‟s time to declare victory. In fact, it‟s at this point
that you must strengthen alliances and renew each stakeholder‟s commitment to what
created change in the first place.

As Moisés Naím wrote in The End of Power, today “power is easier to get, but harder to
use or keep.” To truly revolutionize how things are done, it‟s not enough to change a
policy or shift leadership to a new regime. You must change the beliefs that lead to
actions. History is made by those who can define a path forward and persuade others
— even those who are initially skeptical — that it is a journey worth embarking on.
 APPENDIX H

* Excerpt on the discussion of the benefits of strategic planning for political parties,
Strategic Planning for Political Parties by Van Den Berg, C.

Introduction
Political Strategy and Tactics is designed for people with altruistic goals. It will also be
useful for individuals planning careers in large organizations that take on political
characteristics because of their size, or those to achieve national change. It is assumed
that campaign strategies and tactics are highly important for explaining election
outcomes. In order for a political group to maintain its existence there is a high regard of
strategic planning and persuasive platforms for the citizens. It’s a matter of winning and
losing in the political arena.
The benefits of strategic planning for political parties
Political parties in any political system typically find themselves in a complex and
uncertain environment. Change is a constant within all parties and party organizations,
and in their external surroundings. New individuals take up positions among the
leadership, cadres and back office, and others leave. Budgets change, sometimes for
the better, sometimes for the worse. Changes may be made to the constitutional
arrangements, legislation and other types of regulation concerning the political process
and political parties. The expectations of the electorate as a whole (or of specific
constituencies) may change, and the electorate may change, for instance, as a
consequence of demographic developments. Economic turmoil and domestic and
international policy challenges may either suddenly or gradually confront the party with
new issues. Competing parties may rise or decline. Parties may split, merge or find
other groups or individuals with which to collaborate. Such changes and challenges can
strengthen or weaken a party, and can either contribute to the realization of the party’s
goals, have little impact or jeopardize the party’s continuity. In order for parties to be
successful in such an environment, focus, determination and adaptive institutional
capacity are required. It is vital for a political party, including the party organization, to
have a shared idea and picture of what the party is, where it wants to go and how it
plans to get there. This tool is designed to offer the mechanisms to develop these
shared visions.
Strategic planning and enhanced institutional capacity offer clear benefits to political
parties.
1. The party and the party organization can enhance their performance and respond
more quickly (and more successfully) to changing circumstances. Clearer insights into a
party’s strengths, weaknesses and priorities allow it to achieve better results using
fewer resources. In this context, better results do not mean better electoral results, but
achieving organizational goals such as stable or increased levels of funding, enhanced
capacity to organize party congresses, more effective and efficient ways of selecting
candidates, and better training programmes for party members.
2. A strategic attitude can also enhance understanding and the capacity for
organizational learning. This leads to more conscious, more disciplined and better-
informed methods of self-analysis and decision making. Finally, planning can improve
external communications and societal and political support, because it helps a party
communicate its core ideas and objectives more effectively— making it more
recognizable and creating a more positive, consistent and confident public image.
Strategic planning is equally relevant from the perspective of political party assistance
providers.
1. Strengthening parties’ institutional capacity —typically the mission of assistance
providers—is more likely to succeed, and is more likely to take place in a focused way,
if the political party has developed an organizational mission. Strategic management as
a tool for political parties involves formulating a mission and following up to fulfil that
mission. For the parties that assistance providers work with, strategic planning can help
improve their positioning visà-vis their external environment and their performance in
their internal environment.
2. A longer planning time frame makes it easier for assistance providers to programme
and organize their support to political parties, and to work together with other assistance
providers. A long-term strategic plan extends the time frame of their partner parties’
objectives and planning, and is therefore more realistic and effective than one-off
projects and funding. A sound strategic plan will lead to identifiable projects for the
medium and longer term, and such plans may function as a framework for project
proposals for which the assistance provider can, in turn, make funding or other types of
assistance available.
3. Support to strategic planning can be equally successful when carried out with a single
or multiple political parties at the same time. However, an inclusive strategic planning
process, in which multiple political parties take part individually, helps identify possible
joint challenges to both institutional capacity building and the democratic system in
question. As such, at a more macro level, strategic planning will help assistance
providers identify priorities and determine their future focus areas.
 APPENDIX I
*Excerpt on the discussion of the Influence of Political Parties to the Public by Simon, C.
et al. (2018)

Introduction
Much evidence suggests that interest groups not only respond to, but also try to sway
public opinion. As early as the 1950s, Truman (1951: 213) concluded that interest
groups engage in „more or less continuing efforts to guide and control‟ public attitudes.
He even postulated that „almost invariably one of the first results of the formal
organization of an interest group is its embarking upon a program of propaganda,
though rarely so labelled, designed to affect opinions concerning the interests and
claims of the new group‟. Nearly half a century later, Kollman (1998) found that for 56
per cent of interest groups, „the public‟ was the primary target of their campaigns. Many
studies of interest group strategies come to similar conclusions (Schlozman & Tierney
1986; Baumgartner et al. 2009; Dür & Mateo 2013). This evidence begs two questions:
Do these activities by interest groups actually change individual attitudes with respect to
specific policies? And if so, how does this effect come about?

Contemporary studies of the policy process in postindustrial societies indicate that the
elite challenging mode of politics has been very effective in bringing about policy
change when it is associated with the development of a social movement. Social
movements are broad-based efforts to change societal institutions and practices that
emphasize a collective identity reflective of an identifiable set of shared values. Social
movements encapsulate a broad range of concerns and engage a large number of
organizations and individual citizens who become united for a particular cause. Such
movements have included the causes of the Prohibition of the Manufacture and Sale of
Alcohol, Workers‟ Rights, Civil Rights, Environmental Protection, and Women‟s Rights.
All of these movements affected state and local politics and public policymaking in state
and local government. Currently, the Gay and Lesbian Rights movement is also very
active at state and local levels of government. Efforts to promote the recognition of
benefits associated with civil unions and the legal recognition of gay marriage are public
policy changes being sought by this contemporary social movement.
Sociologists and political scientists who have studied social movements have identified
some characteristics associated with social movements that have been successful in
the past; these characteristics include the following:

1. Sufficient financial resources to recruit and educate new members and to promote
the desired policy outcomes in the general public:
Having sufficient financial support is particularly important in areas where the
proposed changes are strongly opposed by groups with substantial resources.

2. Involving people and organizations with prior grassroots experience:

Having staff and leadership skilled and experienced in grassroots politics expedites
successful organizational efforts. This is likely the case because experienced people
are more likely to know which strategies work and which do not work under given
circumstances. Experienced people are also more likely to be connected to affected
communities and know the political landscape within which the recruitment of movement
participants can be accomplished.

3. Identifying emotional issues to motivate people to participate:

This process is known as “dramatic spotlighting,” and it occurs in cases wherein
events that lead to public outrage are carefully highlighted for the media and potential
participants. There are many examples of injecting emotion into a natural resource and
environmental policy issues — such as the filming of the clubbing of baby seals in
annual hunts in Canada by Greenpeace and a 1970‟s EPA television commercial using
a stately Native American elder with tears coming from his eyes after coming upon a
polluted river; while these are particularly noteworthy examples, many others could be
given.

4. Using a “micro-mobilization” approach:

Organizing small informal and formal groups at the local level, all connected to a
much larger network or coalition, has been found to be an important component of
successful social movements in the past. Having people interact at the local level
creates social bonds among otherwise isolated persons, and these bonds increase
issue interest and participation in social movement activities. At the same time as local
bonds are being built there must be an ongoing connection to a larger movement;
locally bonded people scattered across a myriad of communities are more likely to take
part in movement activities if they believe large numbers of others are also participating
in other localities facing the same problems they are dealing with in their own
community. Examples of relatively successful movements would be the women‟s
suffrage movement (i.e., “first wave” feminism), the civil rights movement, and the early
environmental movement in the 1960s and 1970s.

5. The absence of crosscutting cleavages:

Crosscutting cleavages —such as liberal versus conservative, rural versus urban,
etc. within a social movement — often lead to political conflict and undercut efforts at
building a large, cohesive and effective movement. Successful social movements in the
past have grown more inclusive over time, but start with a core set of fairly uniform
actors who maintain a steadfast focus on their shared cause.

6. Having a diverse and “co-optable” communications network:

Successful social movements tend to develop communication networks that connect
large and diverse numbers of people to the cause — the greater the number and
diversity of people actively participating in the network, the more likely the movement
will be successful. The communication network needs to connect individual and group
participants in the movement to one another, it needs to connect participants with the
mass media, and it needs to connect the movement with potential new participants.

7. Having capable and competent leadership:

Articulate and charismatic leaders and organizers are much more likely to inspire
emotion and participation than passive followers and inarticulate leaders. If leaders are
identified as being too partisan or allied too closely with a particularly divisive interest
group, then their ability to lead a broad- based movement is diminished.

8. Having an optimistic expectation:

This characteristic of successful social movements is related to sense of efficacy.
People have to feel they are joining ranks with large numbers of like-minded people,
and that their own participation will contribute to the success of the movement. While
this is a very difficult characteristic to engender in contemporary America, with only 60
percent of the eligible population participating in the electoral process it is nonetheless
very important for successful social movements. (9) Encouraging solidarity instead of
free riding. With many state and local issues in the political sphere, there are many free
riders — people willing to sit back and watch others take action and then benefit from
those actions without themselves having contributed their fair share. Successful
movements are able to move people to take private actions that contribute to collective
political action (writing letters, attending public meetings, voting for supportive
candidates, joining groups, donating money, etc.) despite the temptation to free-ride on
the sacrifices of others.
Campaigns are events where voters receive information about the political parties,
their candidates and their political platform. Voters use this information to make a
choice among the competing candidate and parties on polling day.
For voters to be able to make a rational and informed choice, they need clear and
accurate information on the candidates, platforms and issues. They need to be able to
make a decision on who to vote for in a secure environment, free from fear or
intimidation. Integrity suffers when voters are unable to attend a campaign rally or
openly support a political party or candidate because they are harassed by the
supporters of another political party.

Candidates and political parties need the support of the voters in order to win an
election. Integrity requires that they be able to get their message out without
interference, and without having to resort to violence or smear tactics.
Campaign ethics and the behaviour of the parties, candidates and their supporters has
a direct impact on the integrity of the electoral process. Unethical campaign behaviour
or treatment that artificially affects the election outcome and the process does not
allow for a free, fair or credible election.

To ensure integrity in the electoral campaign, most electoral systems require

campaigns to be conducted:
 according to the rules and regulations established in the legal framework;
 without coercion or vote buying;
 respecting the calendar of the elections;
 respecting the right and freedom of other parties to organize and campaign,
and to reach out to voters with their messages;
 respecting the rights of voters to obtain information from a variety of sources,
and to attend political rallies of other parties;
 ethically, focusing on political issues and candidate platforms, instead of
conducting smear campaigns or ones of rumour and innuendo;
 nonviolently, without intimidating opposing party candidates, opposition
supporters or the media, and without the use of language inciting their own
supporters to violence;
 respecting the freedom of the press to cover the campaign and to express
opinions on the campaigns;
 respecting the electoral managers and not interfering with the performance of
their duties;
 using the official complaint process and the legal system for appeals; and
 accepting and complying with the official election results and the final decision
of the election dispute resolution organization.