Rethinking Democratization in the Philippines 195 At least two strategic, critical outcomes resulted from such a process. First, an initially shaky but eventually stabilized modus vivendi facilitated the participation of leading elites from the dictatorship to be part of the transition government and eventually win and hold on to crucial elective positions. Such an arrangement also led to the restoration of the economic and political power of the old anti-Marcos elites whose resources were taken over by the ruling family and its cronies. Second, this grand restoration of elite rule foreclosed the possibility of the substantial redistribution of material resources such as landownership that could have significantly empowered the traditionally poor and oppressed sectors.7 Unlike many cases of “pacted” transitions where mass participation and mobilization were either absent or weak, the struggle that eventually ousted the dictatorship in the country was firmly anchored in mass organizing and mobilization especially by the left movement in the country. As discussed by the book authors, the robust presence of a vibrant and politically engaged civil society capable of resisting oppressive governments and working for transformative developmental projects is a positive force for democratization. While maximizing its “social capital” and coalitional capabilities, civil society groups must also guard against being routinely co-opted by government officials with little public accountability. They certainly can work out principled alliances with government actors but they must also preserve their independence and integrity. Undoubtedly, one of the more inspiring aspects of the transition process has been the continuing assertive activity of various civil society organizations in protesting repressive government actions, oftentimes at the sacrifice of countless lives. In his summation of twenty five years of comparative transition processes away from authoritarian rule, Schmitter argues: “Of all the economic and cultural prerequisites or preconditions of democracy, the one that must command the most urgent attention is the need for prior agreement on national identity and borders” (2010: 25). Indeed, the urgency of addressing this problem is tragically demonstrated by the failure of government to come to terms with the historic affirmation of the national identity and geographic community of Muslims in the country. In another but related level of contested national identity rooted on questions of class equality and solidarity, the protracted armed struggle by Communist-led guerrillas in the country likewise attests to the urgency of this problem. The failure of government during the transition process to decisively resolve these legitimate issues does not speak well of its capabilities and priorities.