My Loyalty To My Party Ends Where My Loyalty to My Country Begins
by Manuel L. Quezon
(Delivered at the Collectivista Party Convention, Manila Grand Opera House, February 17, 1922)
This is a day of transcendental importance to me. I am going to take a step the consequences of which I have foreseen, but the result of which God alone knows. From the time I entered public life I fought under the banner of the Nacionalista Party. I affiliated with it at a time when the only words written on its flag were: Immediate Independence. I affiliated with it when the struggle we carried on during the revolution was still fresh in my mind and I thought it my solemn duty to form part of a political organization to defend the very same ideals for which the soldiers of the Revolution fought and fell.
The Nacionalista Party and the entire Filipino people know how faithfully I have served my party colleagues. Everybody knows how I fought for them within and without the ranks and that I never hesitated to come to the fore to defend the party’s ideals and its men. I want to recall at this moment, with satisfaction and without regret, how I have always supported and defended him with all sincerity and even as strongly as his strongest supporters could have done. I defended the party at least as much as the staunchest Nacionalista and the most dyed-in-the-wool Unipersonalist.
But the party never has been and never will be the people. My loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins. Even if it were not the Nacionalista Party, let it be any other party, from the moment that my convictions do not coincide with the ideal for which the party stands, I consider it my duty to leave it. A man to be worthy of the name should put his conviction into practice, profess them with faith, defend them with courage, happen what may.
My colleagues of the Nacionalista party know that rumor has been spread broadcast that the disagreement in the party is due to personal ambitions, jealousies and envies. Those who are more intimately linked with the march of events know full well that it is due to nothing else but a difference in opinion that grew wider as days went by.
I did not look for the conflict. The conflict was thrust on me. A recent arrival from the United States, the Filipino people know that I had to undergo medical treatment, that my health was broken, that I needed rest. I tried to avoid it because I knew that it was going to mean a fight, and I did not want conflict, I wanted harmony, peace.
The conflict came in spite of myself. Confronted by it, I had to defend the principles which I sincerely believed were just. After the reorganization of the Lower House, on a more liberal basis than it has ever been in the past, I invited peace. I was answered that the fight has not ended. On another occasion again I asked for peace, and again I was answered that the fight was on, and then I was told that the issue was going to be presented to the convention and that those who shall refuse to abide by the decision of the majority shall be expelled from the party.
You will agree with me, gentlemen, that those who believe with me in the principles of collective leadership because it is their honest conviction were not going to retreat nor surrender. It was a question of principle and conviction and there is no party on earth that can make them change their views.
The convention met. The principles of the collective group were accepted. They were accepted to avoid the split, a split that at first they wanted to force but which later they exerted all efforts to prevent.
The independence question was brought forward as an argument against the reorganization of a new party. Resignations were tendered. Sacrifices were offered or made in order to maintain the union in the party. The collective theory of leadership and other collective propositions were accepted and incorporated in the party platform. Everything was taken advantage of for the sake of the unity of the party. Ideas and principles were sacrificed. The motto of the Unipersonalists was: Sacrifice all principles, but save the party at all cost! The motto of the Collectivists is: Save the principles and sacrifice everything, even the party itself!
We did not look for the division. I did not favor the split. But it exists now, fatal to the country, perhaps, but necessary for the health of the country. My Collectivist colleagues know how much I tried to avoid this conflict. Specially so when the collective principles were accepted by the Unipersonalists. I was opposed to a division in the party. That is why you must have noticed how the papers spoke of union one day and the next day of a possible split, union the next, and a division the following day and so on.
The positive fact is that nobody can prevent the split in the Nacionalista Party. It is divided because men who were once united, now disagree on fundamental questions that vitally affect the country. While some are conservatives, others are liberal, and while some are Unipersonalists others are Collectivists. The Nacionalista Party might have incorporated the collective principles but this was because those who are in it saw that it is the only salvation for its men, during the coming elections. The one who over a month ago was an out-and-out Unipersonalist and overnight turned a complete somersault and changed into a Collectivist, cannot profess that faith with sincerity. It is a conviction for convenience, and it cannot and should not be taken at its face value.
It is said that there is no difference between the Unipersonal and Collective theories. It is a question of mere form, they say. The Unipersonalist who thinks that the present conflicting tendencies are not a sufficient foundation to differentiate one from the other does not either understand the real question at issue or in accepting the Collective principles, accepted them without sincerity. The difference is fundamental.
The Collectivists believe in a true government of democracy, not only in form, but also in fact, not the people’s rule without the expression of popular will, but a government by the people by means of a voluntary expression of the sovereign will of that people. The Collectivists want a government of opinion, not a government that solves vital questions without the country’s knowledge or how or when the solution was made.
One of the greatest arguments used against us by our American critics is that we do not have here a government of opinion. But is there a more conclusive proof of the fact that there is public opinion here than the present triumph of the Collective principle of leadership? Is there one who doubt that this question has already been decided by the people? When this question was discussed for the first time, almost all the papers, with very few exceptions, were in favor of the unipersonal theory and against the collective principle. What was the effect on the people? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The people decided for themselves. And this shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that here we have public opinion, courageous, independent, unbiased. Those who have followed this question with interest must have seen that the Filipino people is interested in matters that vitally affect its government, and that it is capable of forming its own opinion, without the need of tutors or mentors. I repeat, the entire press of the Philippines was against the collective principle, and when I say press, I refer specially to the so-called independent papers. And yet, the country declared itself in favor of Collectivism, and such is the force of the avalanche that the Unipersonalists are afraid to own that they are what they say.
The question now is: after the acceptance and inclusion of the collective theory in the Nacionalista platform, should we remain in the party? I have given this subject much thought. I spent sleepless nights pondering over it, and this I say in all the seriousness that a step such as the one we are taking deserves. There are those who believe and affirm that personal ambition and personal interest are the main consideration in the fight. They said that the one who will head it is there, because he wants to scale the height of power, and that those who follow him do it not because of principles, but for personal convenience. In all sincerity I want to tell you now that lest our action be translated in that thwarted way and there are many who are interested in presenting it thus, I tried my very best to prevent the split because I do not want that political struggles in this country should be taken as animated by personal motives.
Listen to this: The politician who does not have any patriotic purpose but his personal aggrandizement in entering politics, who is only after his personal convenience and nothing else, is surely after a job, a position. Can I find a position in the Philippine Government and in the gift of the Filipino people higher than that of President of the Senate, the highest position to which a Filipino could be sent by his countrymen? If I wanted to perpetuate myself in power, is there anything better for me than to remain in the Nacionalista Party?
But no! I prefer to take the risky side. I prefer to be in a new party that must be organized, that will mean sacrifice, work, fight. And the same is true with those who are with me. There is nothing more comfortable for them than to remain in a powerful party to insure their victory at the polls. But they sustain a principle. They are fighting for their conviction, not for their convenience. One should not belong to a party only to occupy a position. He should be a member of a party to defend the ideals of that party, and then occupy a position so that he may be able to better defend the ideals of the party by means of his position.
There are no bad feelings against our former colleagues of the Nacionalista Party. We harbor no grudge against them. We give them the same affection. There is no reason in the world why we can not consider ourselves as brothers. Unless they consider that only those who belong to one party can be called brothers, and if that is their conception of unity in a party, I say that is destructive, suicidal. It is not the unity of the party that should be sought. It should rather be the unity of the people. Partisan struggles should never involve bad feelings and personal hatred. We can and we should remain as we have been, the brothers that we are.
What a beautiful spectacle for the country to behold political fights limited to discussion of principles and eliminating personalities! What a magnificent spectacle for the people to see political opponents eating on the same banquet tables, united by the same links of affection and friendship! Much as I regret it, this seems to be something unknown yet here. Everytime that the people saw the Speaker and myself together, immediately the talk goes the rounds that our political differences have been patched up. When we had toasted each other at a banquet in the Ayuntamiento, all the papers said there was peace between the two, not knowing that the next day a big bomb was going to explode.
People may ask why it is that this break only takes place now. The reason is simple. When the Nacionalista Party was organized, it was an organization with the sole purpose of coordinating the forces of the country together for Philippine Independence. It was not called upon to solve political, social, economic matters. All the Filipinos affiliated as Nacionalistas; in time the Nacionalista Party came in power. It found itself then confronted by political, social and economic problems. It was invested with legislative power. From that time on differences in opinion began to spring up. You must have noticed that our Senate is liberal and our Lower House, conservative. This is the only country where such a phenomenon takes place with the exception of Australia. The reason is simple and it needs no further comment. That fact exists. There are two tendencies, the conservative and the liberal, and it is for the welfare of the country that there should be two parties organized and based on those two opposing tendencies.
Laws do not make a government democratic or autocratic or have autocratic laws and have a democratic government. We have England for example where there is a king and it is monarchy, yet the workings of its government are democratic. And we have on the other hand some Latin American countries where their government can be summarized in three points: 1. The government resides in the people; 2. The people delegate their power to a President; 3. The President does what he pleases.
I want to tell you, gentlemen, that we have done all that we could to avoid this split. Our efforts failed. The Collectivists believe that union in a party does not mean union of men. It means unity in principles professed and practised. We believe that the organization of a new party does not mean the bankruptcy of our National cause, because we hold the Nacionalista Party is not the people. Even if there is a split, we shall work together for our complete political emancipation. We have faith in our people, blind, sublime faith in them and we know that no Filipino will be recreant to the legacy bequeathed to him by his forefathers and that all of us to a man will stand in favor of Philippine Independence, immediate, absolute and complete. We know that the Filipino people, irrespective of party, creed or religion, will force the issue and compel all party men to work for the realization of our sacred ideals.
We divided, but divided in ideas, united in sentiment, united in love of country, divided in the procedure of serving her best. The Unipersonalists are antiquarians: the Collectivists are modern. Even if I wanted to remain in the party, I cannot very well do it. For it would be like mixing oil and water in a glass. We shall need a new house now that we leave our old one. Now we have two strong parties that we hope shall fight for ideals and ideals alone, eliminating personalities.
Source: “The Speeches of Manuel L. Quezon”; copy courtesy of the Filipiniana Division, National Library of the Philippines; the date for this speech has been determined by Dr. Rolando Gripaldo; although Zaide cites Pedro de Llana and F.B. Icasiano’s date of Feb. 24, 1922; while Carlos Quirino, Samuel K. Tan, date it to Feb. 18, 1922; while Lew Gleeck by way of Rafael Palma dates it to Nov. 1, 1920.
