KAPAG LAHAT AY KAAWAY | The ND Movement's Crisis of Paranoia

The recent controversy involving youth organizer Nikka Gaddi offers a revealing glimpse into what critics describe as a growing culture of paranoia within sections of the National Democratic (ND) movement.

According to Gaddi's public statements, the conflict did not begin with "red-tagging," or the practice of accusing individuals or organizations of having links with the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army-National Democratic Front of the Philippines (CPP-NPA-NDFP). Instead, she claims it began with an internal dispute over the direction of an organization she founded.

Gaddi alleges that certain individuals wanted Kayumanggi to align itself with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines. When she refused, she says, she was eventually accused of red-tagging them.

By her account, the disagreement centered on pressure to steer Kayumanggi toward an NDF-aligned orientation. She claims she was effectively given an ultimatum: allow the shift or risk losing members. If true, the issue was never merely about personalities or misunderstandings. It was about whether an independent organization should be expected to conform to a particular ideological framework.

She also claims to possess screenshots, video recordings, and other evidence related to the dispute but chose not to release them publicly despite what she described as insults, betrayal, and false accusations.

In a series of public posts, Gaddi offered additional details about the conflict.

"They wanted me and the group I founded to change into what it never was to begin with," she wrote. She further claimed that members pushing for the change wanted Kayumanggi to adopt a direction similar to that of the National Democratic Front [of the Philippines].

"What's missing in this context is that they wanted Kayumanggi to become like the National Democratic Front or they'll leave. I had to choose, they said," Gaddi wrote.

Her response was straightforward: "Why the shift? Why demand?"

If Gaddi's account is accurate, the controversy takes on a very different character. The central issue ceases to be whether someone made an offensive statement or whether a disagreement spiraled into social media accusations. Instead, the dispute becomes a struggle over organizational identity, leadership, and autonomy.

Blueprint of Ideological Capture

For many former cadres and critics of the national democratic movement, the allegations sound familiar.

For decades, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its allied legal formations have faced a consistent accusation from former activists, labor leaders, and ex-cadres: the systematic practice of identifying promising sectoral groups, embedding activists within them, and gradually steering them toward the broader political objectives of the revolutionary underground.

Supporters describe this as legitimate alliance-building. Former organizers call it ideological capture.

Viewed through this lens, the weaponization of "red-tagging" takes on a distinct structural utility. By reframing a basic organizational dispute over autonomy into a narrative of state-aligned persecution, underground operatives insulate themselves from internal scrutiny. It raises an urgent question: Has the concept of red-tagging been so thoroughly hollowed out that it is now used as a shield to police internal dissent and enforce organizational control?

Separating this political dispute from separate concerns regarding Kayumanggi’s community pantry funds is essential. Questions of financial accountability deserve their own independent examination. However, conflating the two issues serves the national democratic forces’ very specific tactical purpose, which is to use legitimate administrative inquiries to obscure a predatory campaign of political reorientation.  

Ideological hysteria

What seems to be emerging is no longer simple political vigilance but a form of ideological hysteria in which suspicion replaces engagement and disagreement is quickly interpreted as hostility. 

Traditional organizing in progressive movements relied on persuasion, political education, and sustained engagement with the masses. It understood that allies would not always agree and that disagreement was often a necessary part of building broad coalitions. Nakakalimutan na yata ang punto ng mass organizing na palawakin ang hanay, makahikayat ng mas malawak na masa, at maging espasyo para sa iba't ibang boses na sama-samang kumikilos para sa iisang laban.

Yet what is becoming harder to ignore is the growing perception that conformity is taking precedence over discussion, and that unquestioning adherence to a political line is being valued more than collective struggle itself.

Observers point to a culture that seems increasingly defensive and suspicious, one that struggles to accommodate criticism without turning it into a test of loyalty. Rather than engaging dissent on its merits, attention often shifts to questioning motives. Difficult questions are met not with answers but with attempts to isolate, label, or cast doubt on those raising them.

Over time, such tendencies can make independent thought feel less like a contribution and more like a liability.

Kapag hindi ka sumunod, kalaban ka na ba agad?

The result is a climate in which accusations of red-tagging are no longer directed solely at ideological opponents. Increasingly, they are aimed at former members, former allies, independent organizers, and even individuals who once worked alongside the movement. People who share many of the same democratic aspirations and social concerns can suddenly find themselves treated as adversaries simply because they reject a particular political line or resist a specific organizational agenda.

Based on Gaddi’s account, the dispute centered on the identity and direction of an organization she helped build. It was, at its core, a political and organizational disagreement. Yet instead of remaining a debate over principles, leadership, and autonomy, it allegedly evolved into accusations of red-tagging against the very person who refused those demands.

What is more troubling still is what this suggests about the movement's relationship with criticism itself. No organization can build lasting alliances while constantly questioning the loyalties of its own allies. Influence does not expand by treating every disagreement as an existential threat, nor can democratic participation flourish where legitimate criticism is viewed with suspicion.

History shows that organizations become most vulnerable not when they are criticized, but when they lose the capacity to absorb criticism. Once every dissenting voice is treated as suspect, every uncomfortable question as an attack, and every disagreement as evidence of bad faith, the circle inevitably narrows. Before long, identifying enemies becomes easier than recognizing friends because nearly everyone outside a shrinking zone of ideological conformity is regarded with suspicion.

If Gaddi's allegations are true, then the Kayumanggi controversy is not really about red-tagging. Not even about the inconsistencies of the organization’s community pantry initiative. It is about what happens when an independent organization refuses to be reoriented toward a political agenda it never set out to embrace.

Whether the allegations surrounding Gaddi are ultimately accepted or rejected is a separate matter. The larger question is what the controversy reveals about political discourse within parts of the ND movement. If every internal conflict is reframed as persecution, every critic presumed malicious, and every disagreement interpreted through the lens of red-tagging, then the movement faces a challenge far greater than any external opponent.

It faces the challenge of its own growing paranoia.