In late 2004, the cause-oriented movement clashed with the Cojuangco family when farm and mill workers at Hacienda Luisita struck to demand higher wages, more benefits, and land distribution.
Ocampo, then already representing Bayan Muna in Congress, tried to negotiate with Cory and her brother Jose, or Peping, to convince them to heed the workers’ demands. Peping refused to talk with the union leaders, who then asked Cory to intercede.
But no resolution came forth. Cory’s camp insisted that she had nothing to do with the management of Hacienda Luisita, “that it was in the hands of Peping Cojuangco,” Ocampo said.
The alliance between Cory and the progressive mass movement once more took place when in 2005, she called on President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to resign at the height of the “Hello Garci” scandal. From that point on, she remained active in the campaign to oust Arroyo, and her last political statement was one condemning charter-change moves aimed at allowing Arroyo to stay in power beyond 2010, when her term is set to expire.
Appraisal
As a leader, Ocampo said, Cory attempted to represent the sentiments of the people, but she glossed over, if not ignored outright, class differences.
The people’s sentiments “were nebulous for her,” Ocampo said. “She generalized sentiments. So her concepts were very general: democracy, justice, truth. But she lacked sharpness in understanding the historical evolution of class society.”
That is why, on the issue of agrarian reform, Cory did acknowledge the need for common people to own land, but she had also said that recognized the rights of the rich and the elite.
This, Ocampo said, had much to do with her class and her upbringing. “She lacked a feel for the poor, because she never directly dealt with workers.”
And because Cory also lacked the necessary political sophistication for a statesperson, her upbringing, such as it was, and her newfound political relationships with people who had been dealing only with Ninoy before she was catapulted to power, practically guided her regime.
“She was never a political player throughout the time that Ninoy was alive,” Ocampo said. “She was only absorbed into political life after Ninoy was killed. She did not have the necessary preparation for a political life.” (Bulatlat.com)
The article also fails to mention that Joma Sison condemned the radical Left's non-participation at EDSA I.
I agree with Mr. Jorge. They even try to undermine the possibility of having a 'revolution' with matching picnics on the side.
I am a Moro and a Muslim. While Cory’s role in the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship was important, she never left a legacy that would have a profound impact on the final and just resolution of the war in Mindanao and Sulu. True that she went to Jolo to meet with Nur Misuari of the MNLF. But that’s it. As a typical member of the Filipino elite perched atop an ivory tower, she felt no attachment to the oppressed Moro masses and no historical grasp of the root cause of the Bangsamoro liberation struggle. Thus, under her ‘democratic’ regime, we Moros were no better off just like when we were under previous Manila regimes which considered and treated our occupied Moro homeland as a colony of the Philippine nation-state
The article fails to mention that in the 1986 snap elections, the Left, instead of supporting Cory, called for a boycott. And, during the EDSA uprising, the Left chose not to participate and again called for a boycott. So when they sing praises now to the "icon of democracy", they are actually trying to drown out the fact that in the two most significant exercises where Cory showed she was the icon of democracy, the Left chose to sit it out.