AS FAR as I know, communism is the only ideology in the world that combines both a political component and an economic component into one.
I am not saying that democracy is inferior to communism, but the fact is, democracy is a political ideology that does not have an economic component.
Some might say that capitalism is the economic component of democracy but that may not exactly be true, aside from the fact that the term capitalism has taken on some kind of derogatory meaning. In other words, capitalism has become a bad word in its runaway version, and some say that its effects are beyond repair. In a similar manner, the term civil society has also become a bad word, but fortunately in this case it is not beyond repair.
Admittedly, cooperativism is also a form of capitalism but it could be said that it is the gentler version that is more democratic, so to speak. I say that because the runaway version appears to be exclusive, meaning to say that entry to it is open only to those who have bigger capital. That is perhaps the reason why financial inclusion becomes an issue in economies where the runaway version of capitalism dominates.
In contrast, cooperativism favors financial inclusion because even those who have smaller capital are not denied entry and not only that, even those who have relatively smaller capital than the others have the same voice in a cooperative organization, because all investors, big or small only have one vote.
In theory, runaway capitalism is not supposed to prosper in a true democracy, because there are supposed to be laws that would reign in even the biggest among the corporations. In reality however, the bigger the corporations would become, the more powers they would have, and sometimes they would even have undue influence over their host governments.
At that point, the whole equation becomes a contradiction, because the essence of democracy is lost as the majority of the people would even have lesser influence over them. Whether we like it or not however, the bigger corporations are here to stay for as long as we have a democracy. That being the case, the only thing that we could do, so to speak, is to encourage the growth of more cooperatives, so that somehow, there would be equilibrium between the two sides.
As far as I know, there is no political party in the Philippines that is openly espousing the combination of democracy and cooperativism into one seamless ideology. Of course there are party list organizations (PLOs) that are advocating cooperativism, but PLOs are really not mainstream parties.
Obviously, no political party will espouse capitalism as an ideology, because of its derogatory meanings. Even with that, I do not see how capitalism could become an advocacy, because it is lacking in social purposes, the main purpose of capitalism being only to earn profits for itself.
Fortunately, there is now a law that requires corporations to have their own Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs, and because of that, some corporations might even start saying that they have a double bottom line, and that is to earn profits and to serve society.
According to the Local Government Code (LGC), political parties are not supposed to get involved in the barangay elections and by all means, that rule should be followed. In theory, only individual candidates who are running on their own could run. Because of that rule, it would not be prudent for local cooperatives to field their own candidates in the barangay elections, as organization, that is.
However, nothing would also prevent the local cooperatives from issuing a positive list of candidates who are worthy to be elected, perhaps based on their known adherence to democratic and cooperative principles. As far as I know, issuing a positive list is perfectly legal, but if I am proven wrong, I will take back what I said.
There is nothing written in black and white, but I think it would also not be prudent for the directors and the managers of the local cooperatives to also run as barangay officials, because there could be certain conflicts of interests that could come up.
In reality, the bigger the local cooperatives are, the bigger their influence over the barangay officials could be, and because of that, it would be better to draw the line between the two. For example, it is possible for the barangay government to award contracts or buy products and services from the local cooperatives, and it would not look good if there are overlapping officials between the two.
As I see it, it would be a good idea for the local cooperative to become the contractor for the delivery of public services such as toll roads and waste management the reason for this is twofold. On one hand, the local cooperative might be the one who has the funds to invest in these public services. On the other hand, the members of the cooperative who would eventually earn from rebates and dividends are the same people who live in the barangay as the local residents.
This is actually a good way to promote livelihood in the community and not only that, it is also a good way to keep the money within the barangay, rather than give it to outsiders who may be richer than most of the local residents./PN
