"Sociological Marcosianism?"
(notes after observing nostalgia-driven 'Marcos Loyalism',
its "social characteristics", support for Duterte,
and the desire to reinstate Marcos in Malacanang)
(notes after observing nostalgia-driven 'Marcos Loyalism',
its "social characteristics", support for Duterte,
and the desire to reinstate Marcos in Malacanang)
It's been months passed as Loyalists rejoiced in the burial of the former Dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the Heroes Cemetery in Taguig. Describing it as a "stepping stone" to redemption, the loyalists, with all their uncompromised loyalty to the fallen dictator and his family would think that as the bones been moved from Batac to its well-done grave in Bicutan, lies chances of seeing another Marcos in Malacanang- such as those of Bongbong.
However, amidst all the nostalgia-driven sentiment, the horrifying images left by the regime continues to linger. Of course, for loyalists they would insist that the regime as the bestest-as it offers a santitised version based from their "first-hand experiences" if not bouts of propaganda, making it whether right or wrong, that the Marcos regime served as an example of stability if not development regardless of its bloodied facts.
For this, it seems to unambiguously define and therefore resist with truth. For the liberals, Marcos is plain and simple the country's dark past, imbued with repression and corruption regardless of its numerous contributions, and had been booted as democracy revived through 'People Power'; while the Revolutionary left, they sought it more as a plain and simple continuity of a repressive past, that whether it came from Marcos or not, that 'democracy' is only but a consolidated status quo, if not, bluntly speaking, a continued dictatorship that benefits the elites.
And to think that social media, particularly those of nostalagia sites has becoming hotbeds for Marcosiana, of Martial law notalgia, and its yearnings for its revival, one would say that the struggle is more than just fighting what has become a scarecrow nor exorcising a specter. At first they sought Marcos loyalism as a finge group of elders praising the late dictator, ranging from those who claim him as their messiah to those of his alleged "welath" ready to be distributed, complete with alleged documents and even videoes shown in YouTube; however, as nostalgia pages churning about Marcos's feats, of infrastructure and 'order', one would say that the sanitation process tuned each and everyone believe, while reintepreting its bloodied truths as lies if not a necessary catharsis.
But despite the differences, both loyalists and the liberals are supporting a model of nation-building commonly advocated by neoliberal economists and the like: increased consumption, currying foreign direct investments, building infrastructures meant to stimulate development, even trying to present a lively democratic processes and some extent a semblance of a welfare state. From this structure, both may think that it create an appearance such as a real productive democracy- although the latter find it as part of a transition out of dictatorship and the former to counter the existing oligarchy and its interests.
However, as crisis continue to prevail in an economy obviously subservient to the wishes of local elites and tailor-cutted to accommodate multinational agreements, it has been increasingly impossible to sustain a structure long been proud of by the same people carrying through a neoliberalist present, making some if not most people favoring again an authoritarian past whom they think meant stability and order- if not expressing an utter disgust towards liberalism.
That again bolsters the nostalgic appeal to order and stability similar to 1973 to 1985. Right or wrong, they find the order as necessary to curb the subversive menace be it those from the Radical Left, the separatist, or today's Liberals and other undesirables; as well as to create an economic policy that appears 'developmentalist' despite its actually-existing neoliberal leanings as said earlier. At present they sought today's president Duterte as a transitory figure, and like their idol, they find him as an embodiment of law and order, that with all his blunt interpretation of the law, getting enough blood is necessary to restore stability if not trying to compliment it with some developmental projects.
And alongside nostalgia pages yearning for another Marcos, Duterte fanpages, pseudo-news reports, and others churned hysteria throughout if not those of their views regarding development; from there, one would say that their hatred for whom they think as "subversion" if not "crime" is greatly emphasised enough to rally people to support the order.
With all these, this person adapted the term "Sociological Marcosianism". The term, which in turn based from Spain's Amando de Miguel's "sociological Francoism”, refers to describe social characteristics typical of Marcos era- especially those who lived before and during the Martial Law period, and continues up to present.
And to cite their view, it argued that the sociological character of Marcos Loyalism wasn’t inherently dictatorial nor totalitarian; but rather, it was democratic if not egalitarian, as evidenced by the economic gains as well as highlighted social satisfaction with the transformations the regime had enacted. One example was the infrastructures been made, if not the laws been enacted- which mostly made straight from Malacañang in a form of presidential decrees.
From this, it is also greatly invoked in today's Duterte administration that kind of nostalgic yearning- for according to their view they find him and his leadership skill a continuity of an incomplete aspiration if not a thermidor from an oligarch-oriented disorder, leading to a restoration of an order that is to be cherished by both past and present.
From this, it is also greatly invoked in today's Duterte administration that kind of nostalgic yearning- for according to their view they find him and his leadership skill a continuity of an incomplete aspiration if not a thermidor from an oligarch-oriented disorder, leading to a restoration of an order that is to be cherished by both past and present.
Furthermore, it shows how Filipinos chose toto cite Frank Darling's description of Sarit Thanarat's leadership in Thailand (for a reference), that his regime was authoritarian, and it took a step back from what little democracy was gained during the 1932 revolution; while Thak Chaloemtiarana suggests that Sarit's strict rule can be understood as the modern 'phokhun' style of leadership, wherein the benevolent leader would intervene to help his people whenever deemed necessary.
Come to think if not to imagine: people, as they churn their past lives in a nostalgia-filled page, would say about their childhood as 'happy' with all the nutribuns, bulgur wheat, five candies out of a single peso coin, to those of riding in a Love Bus or buying cheap products from a nearby Kadiwa rolling store; they see stability in a form of quiet roads during curfew hours, if not reading decrees whose reformative nature be meant to ensure the country be given substantial improvement to its subjects "in the spirit of the New Society". All these nostalgic memories somehow made them yearn for another 'father figure' or an 'alpha dog' to guide, discipline, and provide them assistance to support in their developments and achievements.
Or to cut it short, no wonder why those times people would blurt how they were grateful to Marcos as well as to see Marcos through Duterte. The notalgia of theirs turns out to be like what Spain had during Franco: a miracle in a form of "reform" and "development", despite of its bloodied nature. Perhaps no wonder that atmosphere of change these people invoked most turns out to be a reaction to what they disdained for, which was started when their idol was deposed decades ago.
Admittingly speaking, this person encountered some of those who 'benefited' from the regime. Mostly coming from the provinces and worked, lived during those times, they, with all their fanaticism, tried to inculcate its younger counterparts to equate that regime they cherished with stability- for they had lived through it with naturalness and normality.
And with the use of the internet, particularly social media, the proliferation of various groups invoked that same appeal of reliving that past, especially in a time when succeeding regimes been synonymous to poverty, maldevopment, disorder. Sites like "Duterte Today", "Mocha Uson Blog", if not groups supposed to be dealing with Philippine history or community nostalgia turns out to be churning Marcosiana especially when some of its members tend to post their idol and its contributions, alongside their childhood memories and the like- if not shoving their conspiracy theories to everyone.
However, despite the nostalgia-driven fanaticism, there are those who believe that the dictatorship should evolve by retaining a democratic system capable of recognizing the moderate opposition sectors. For sure one would undoubtedly imagined that a broad opposition party would alternate in government with the ruling KBL party. This system would leave the dictatorship’s legacy intact- but given the opposition's serious adherence to oppose if not to overthrow, it makes it impossible to happen.
But despite the overthrow and the change in the charter, it appears that there is still "respect" in the regime's acts, from the decrees brought by the Batasang Pambansa such as P.D. 21 (although it end superseded by the present Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law followed by its "Extended and Reformed" version), the (still) controversial Education Act of 1982 that commercialises and deregulates education, or on how the late Corazon Aquino chose to pay the debts left by her predecessor despite popular demands to discontinue paying and devote to ensure people's welfare.
From these situations, it showed that amidst of change, remnants of the dictatorship, be it in a form of laws or its bloodied acts (the former general Palparan for example) continues to linger the way seeing landlords consolidated their interests further by adopting western-style capitalism in a feudal agrarian setting; so are the businessmen, who as a group, being likewise not immune to economic uncertainties if not trying to remain optimistic in their version of growth and development, shift the economic pressures to the laborers, which ultimately bear the burden of the economy in a form of unemployment, undue exploitation, and high taxes, if not bluntly saying internally that those who oppose their moves deserve the bullet simply because they oppose them! Perhaps, no wonder why they justify the actions especially those deemed controversial in nature, while reforms are likewise end as scraps of paper especially in an order that is, driven by interest.
And with the use of the internet, particularly social media, the proliferation of various groups invoked that same appeal of reliving that past, especially in a time when succeeding regimes been synonymous to poverty, maldevopment, disorder. Sites like "Duterte Today", "Mocha Uson Blog", if not groups supposed to be dealing with Philippine history or community nostalgia turns out to be churning Marcosiana especially when some of its members tend to post their idol and its contributions, alongside their childhood memories and the like- if not shoving their conspiracy theories to everyone.
However, despite the nostalgia-driven fanaticism, there are those who believe that the dictatorship should evolve by retaining a democratic system capable of recognizing the moderate opposition sectors. For sure one would undoubtedly imagined that a broad opposition party would alternate in government with the ruling KBL party. This system would leave the dictatorship’s legacy intact- but given the opposition's serious adherence to oppose if not to overthrow, it makes it impossible to happen.
But despite the overthrow and the change in the charter, it appears that there is still "respect" in the regime's acts, from the decrees brought by the Batasang Pambansa such as P.D. 21 (although it end superseded by the present Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law followed by its "Extended and Reformed" version), the (still) controversial Education Act of 1982 that commercialises and deregulates education, or on how the late Corazon Aquino chose to pay the debts left by her predecessor despite popular demands to discontinue paying and devote to ensure people's welfare.
From these situations, it showed that amidst of change, remnants of the dictatorship, be it in a form of laws or its bloodied acts (the former general Palparan for example) continues to linger the way seeing landlords consolidated their interests further by adopting western-style capitalism in a feudal agrarian setting; so are the businessmen, who as a group, being likewise not immune to economic uncertainties if not trying to remain optimistic in their version of growth and development, shift the economic pressures to the laborers, which ultimately bear the burden of the economy in a form of unemployment, undue exploitation, and high taxes, if not bluntly saying internally that those who oppose their moves deserve the bullet simply because they oppose them! Perhaps, no wonder why they justify the actions especially those deemed controversial in nature, while reforms are likewise end as scraps of paper especially in an order that is, driven by interest.