EDSA "Revolution": Reclaiming Democracy through a Marcosian Paradox?
Introduction
The EDSA "Revolution" of 1986 marks a pivotal moment in Philippine history, symbolizing the struggle for democracy against authoritarian rule. While it is celebrated as a triumph of the people's will, a deeper examination reveals an intriguing paradox: the revolution can be interpreted through the very lens of Ferdinand Marcos’s own ideologies. This note explores the EDSA "revolution" as both a "revolution from the center" and as a movement that skillfully employed Marcosian praxis against him. By critically analyzing Marcos’s writings and proclamations, we uncover how his vision of democracy and societal transformation became a double-edged sword, ultimately serving as a foundation for the people's uprising. In doing so, we highlight the resilience of the Filipino spirit in reclaiming their rights and assert that true revolutionary change arises from the collective actions of the citizenry, even when such actions challenge the authority of the very leaders who claim to represent them.
Background: Martial Law- autocracy guised as "revolution?"
The declaration of martial law in the Philippines remains a contentious topic, interpreted through various lenses that reveal the complexities of power and governance. On one hand, thinkers like Remigio Agpalo view martial law as an embodiment of the "pangulo" principle, suggesting that it justified an autocratic, if not authoritarian, rule rooted in Filipino values, culture, and tradition. Agpalo argues, “The authority of the pangulo is derived from the collective will of the people,” implying that in times of crisis, strong, centralized leadership might be deemed necessary for the nation's stability.
Conversely, Ferdinand Marcos sought to frame martial law in a more palatable, pseudo-progressive light. He positioned himself as a revolutionary leader, asserting that his imposition of martial law was essential for the nation’s transformation and stability. Marcos claimed, “Martial law is a means to a peaceful, orderly, and progressive society.” By presenting himself as the initiator of a "revolution," he aimed to legitimize his actions, framing them as a response to societal chaos and moral decay.
However, this narrative raises critical questions about the authenticity of his revolutionary claims. Critics argue that Marcos effectively hijacked the concept of revolution for his own political gain, manipulating the discourse to justify his consolidation of power. Rather than embodying the democratic aspirations of the Filipino people, his regime often stifled dissent and curtailed freedoms, undermining the very values he claimed to uphold. As he infamously stated, “In a democracy, the people must be allowed to choose their leaders; however, in times of crisis, extraordinary measures are sometimes necessary,” conveniently providing a rationale for his authoritarian rule.
Agpalo’s perspective emphasizes the cultural underpinnings of leadership but also faces scrutiny. While he may argue that strong leadership is justified under the "pangulo" principle, he acknowledges the risks involved, asserting, “Power must always be checked by the will of the people.” This admission underscores the paradox inherent in martial law: while it may be portrayed as a means to achieve order, unchecked authority can lead to tyranny and oppression.
The lived experiences of many Filipinos during martial law starkly contrast with Agpalo’s theoretical justifications. The harsh realities of human rights abuses, enforced disappearances, and the suppression of dissent under Marcos’s regime reveal a betrayal of the democratic ideals that should underpin any legitimate authority. The disconnect between the "pangulo" principle and the authoritarian practices enacted by Marcos illustrates the dangers of conflating strong leadership with autocracy.
Marcos himself expressed a contradictory stance, stating, “The welfare of the people is the highest law,” yet his administration's practices often belied this claim. The erosion of trust and the prevalence of fear during his rule demonstrated that while a leader may claim authority derived from tradition, the failure to uphold democratic principles ultimately alienates the very populace they purport to serve. Marcos’s statement, “We must take decisive action to preserve our nation,” reflects a view that justifies his autocratic measures, yet the consequences of such actions led to widespread suffering and disillusionment.
In this dual interpretation of martial law, we see a stark contrast between the ideals espoused by proponents of the "pangulo" principle and the reality of Marcos’s authoritarian rule. The complexities surrounding martial law highlight not only the challenges of governance in the Philippines but also the enduring struggle for genuine democracy. By critically engaging with both Agpalo's and Marcos's narratives, we can better understand the historical implications of martial law and the ongoing efforts to reclaim democratic values in the Philippines.
The legacy of martial law remains a powerful reminder of the need for vigilance and accountability in governance. The duality of these interpretations serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing that the pursuit of order should never come at the expense of fundamental human rights. As the Philippines continues to navigate its political landscape, the lessons from this tumultuous period serve as a guiding principle for future generations committed to safeguarding democracy and ensuring that power is always aligned with the will of the people.
EDSA: was it a "Revolution 'from' or 'against' the Center?"
At first, it may sound "ridiculous," if not dismissible, to interpret the Edsa Revolution using Ferdinand Marcos’s own views. However, a critical examination of his writings reveals that his ideas can be seen as both a reflection of his vision for the Philippines and a risk to his perpetuation in power. Marcos claimed that “democracy is the revolution” and envisioned a “revolution from the center,” yet the realities of his regime often belied these ideals, mocking the very people who demanded their rights.
Marcos’s assertion that “the state shall guarantee the dignity of every human person” and ensure “full respect for human rights” stands in stark contrast to the oppressive actions of his administration. The declaration of martial law and the systematic silencing of dissent illustrated a deep disconnection between his rhetoric and the lived experiences of Filipinos. This contradiction laid the groundwork for the uprising that characterized the Edsa Revolution, as the people sought to reclaim their rights and assert their agency against a regime that had long neglected their democratic aspirations.
Marcos’s idea that “revolution is not merely an act of violence; it is a transformation of society” becomes particularly ironic when considering the actual transformation that took place during the Edsa Revolution. The uprising represented a profound collective response to a regime that betrayed the principles of democracy. The phrase “the revolution devours its children” serves as a poignant reminder of how revolutions can turn against those who initially support them. In this context, the Edsa Revolution was not just a rejection of Marcos’s authoritarian rule but also an assertion of the people’s “right to revolution,” a right that Marcos himself articulated, albeit in a different context.
By framing their actions as a rightful reclaiming of democracy, the people demonstrated that the revolution he envisioned was not only his to dictate but also theirs to actualize. The Edsa Revolution was thus a realization of the very democratic principles that Marcos professed to support. His own philosophy became a tool for the people to rise against his regime, transforming his words into a powerful justification for their actions.
When the Poor Takes Back the Rebellion Against its Hijacker
"People power" stands as a monumental event in Philippine history, symbolizing a profound expression of the Filipino people's collective struggle for democracy, economic emancipation, and political liberation. This can be framed as a “rebellion of the poor,” as this uprising showcased how marginalized groups asserted their agency against systemic oppression. It was not merely a political change; it was a powerful declaration of the long-suffering populace, particularly those who had been historically neglected and oppressed.
Under Ferdinand Marcos's rule, the poor, who supposed to benefit in that "rebellion" Marcos initiated, still faced significant economic hardship and social exclusion. Marcos’s assertion that “the state shall guarantee the dignity of every human person” starkly contrasts with the lived experiences of many Filipinos, who endured human rights violations, poverty, and violence. This disconnection between his rhetoric and reality fueled widespread frustration, culminating in an uprising that sought to reclaim dignity and rights. The irony in Marcos’s claim that “democracy is the revolution” becomes evident when considering how his regime systematically silenced dissent and suppressed true democratic expression.
And thus, this Edsa "Revolution" was a collective realization among Filipinos that they had the right to challenge the prevailing social order. It represented a reclaiming of agency, where those historically marginalized took an active role in shaping their futures. While Marcos proclaimed that “revolution is not merely an act of violence; it is a transformation of society,” this transformation desired by the people was to break free from the chains of oppression he had imposed. The uprising allowed the poor to take back the rebellion as transforming their struggles into a powerful force, challenging the status quo and asserting their rights. Mobilizing en masse, they contradicted Marcos’s narrative of benevolent leadership, illustrating their determination to demand genuine representation and justice.
However, its legacy remains complex. Many systemic issues affecting the poor persist today, prompting critical questions about whether disillusionment should lead to abandoning democracy in favor of autocracy. The entrenched interests that benefit from various regimes—many echoing injustices from Marcos’s era—continue to frustrate the quest for economic and political liberation. As Marcos himself noted, “the revolution devours its children,” a reminder that revolutions can betray those who initially support them.
Despite the challenges, the ongoing struggle for social justice remains urgent. Surrendering democratic aspirations would be a grave mistake. The reality that unjust policies, some instituted during Marcos’s rule, continue to prevail contradicts the promise of economic emancipation and political liberation. As the Filipino people confront these challenges, the spirit of Edsa must be reignited, emphasizing that democracy is not merely a political system but a continuous struggle for rights and justice.
Instead of retreating into autocracy, the focus must be on reclaiming democracy for the people. The lessons of the Edsa Revolution remind us that real change requires collective action and an unwavering dedication to social justice. Those historically sidelined, particularly the poor, must be at the forefront of this movement, demanding accountability and real change.
Ultimately, the path forward lies not in giving up on democracy but in renewing commitment to its principles. As "people power" illustrates that true democracy must involve the voices and needs of all citizens, especially those who have been marginalized. By taking back the rebellion of the poor, the Filipino people can challenge entrenched interests and work toward a society that genuinely reflects the values of economic emancipation and political liberation. Thus, in this ongoing struggle, it is crucial to honor the people's legacy of struggle and ensure that the ideals of freedom, justice, and equality resonate in the hearts and minds of future generations. By reclaiming their narrative, asserting their rights, and embracing their right to revolution so the Filipino people can continue to advocate for a more just and equitable society, reaffirming that the fight for nationalism, democracy, and social justice is not just a historical event but a vital, ongoing journey.
The "revolution" as using Marcosian Praxis
Against the maker himself
The Edsa "Revolution" can also be analyzed through the lens of "using Marcosian praxis against Marcos." This perspective highlights how the uprising not only critiqued the failures of his regime but also employed his philosophical framework to justify the revolution. In his writings, particularly in "Revolution from the Center," Marcos articulated a vision that placed the people at the center of societal change. He stated, “The people must be the architects of their destiny,” a notion that became ironically subverted as the people mobilized to challenge the regime that sought to define their destiny for them.
While Marcos envisioned a revolution that was meant to uplift the masses, his authoritarian governance negated that vision. The realities of his regime—characterized by repression, human rights abuses, and a failure to respect the very democratic principles he espoused—culminated in the Edsa "Revolution". The people, united in their demand for justice and accountability, acted upon the very ideals he articulated, reclaiming their right to self-determination.
Marcos's assertion that “democracy is a way of life” stands in stark contrast to the oppressive reality faced by Filipinos during his rule. The Edsa "Revolution" was thus not merely a rebellion against tyranny; it was a profound reassertion of the democratic values that had been undermined. The uprising exemplified the notion that the legitimacy of a government is derived from the consent of the governed. When that consent is violated, as it was under Marcos, it becomes the people’s responsibility to reclaim their agency.
In this light, the Edsa "Revolution" serves as a powerful testament to the resilience of the Filipino spirit. It illustrated how the very ideals that Marcos espoused could be transformed into a rallying cry for change. By using his own words against him, the people not only exposed the contradictions of his regime but also redefined what it meant to be a revolutionary in the context of Philippine society.
Conclusion
The Edsa "Revolution" serves as a pivotal moment in Philippine history, where the concept of revolution transcended mere opposition to a regime; it became a powerful assertion of the people's agency. This can indeed be seen as a "revolution from the center," strategically employing Marcos’s own rhetoric against his dictatorial regime- and this ironic utilization highlights the deep contradictions in his leadership and reinforces the legitimacy of the people’s uprising. By framing their actions within the context of Marcos's own rhetoric—such as his claims about the "right to revolution", as well as democracy and human rights—the Filipinos exposed the inherent contradictions in his leadership. This irony not only underscored the legitimacy of their uprising but also highlighted how the very ideals Marcos professed were subverted by his authoritarian practices.
At its core, the Edsa "Revolution" was a collective response to years of oppression. Filipinos yearned for the democratic principles that had been promised but largely unfulfilled under Marcos. The movement was not just about overthrowing a dictator; it was about attempting in reclaiming dignity, rights, and a genuine democratic space for Filipinos. This affirmation of democratic values stands as a testament to the resilience of the Filipino spirit, showcasing how a populace can mobilize to reclaim its agency against systemic injustices.
However, the revolution’s legacy has faced significant challenges. Over time, various interests, including those from the remnants of Marcos’s regime, have attempted to co-opt the narrative of Edsa for their own purposes. This has often resulted in the reduction of its revolutionary aspirations to hollow rhetoric and piecemeal reforms aimed at placating public discontent. Such actions undermine the original goals of the revolution, leading to disillusionment among many Filipinos who feel their struggles have been diluted with some even looking back at the dictatorship itself as providing even a semblance of stability.
But, should this disillusionment be lead to an outright giving up of democracy for autocracy? True that entrenched interests continue to prevail- most of which benefited from various regimes pre-and-post martial law and "people power", what more seeing unjust policies that continue to prevail-some of which done during Marcos's era itself, running contrary to the idea of "economic emancipation" and "political liberation" of the people. Why did "people power" happen? Again, it's more than the change of regime as the establishment and its supporters promote, but a realisation of "economic emancipation" and "political liberation" by subverting the prevailing social order- taking back the rebellion of the poor by the "poor" itself.
Despite these setbacks, the Edsa "Revolution" remains a profound example of collective agency. The ironical act of transforming Marcos’s own philosophical framework into a tool for resistance illustrates the power of the people to reshape their political landscape. This act not only challenged the authority of the dictator but also redefined what it meant to strive for democracy in the Philippines. By embracing and asserting their right to revolution, the people collectively and effectively turned the tables on the very ideas that were meant to justify their oppression- an attempt in reshaping the political landscape and in asserting their place in society and history.
Ultimately, the Edsa "Revolution" serves as a vital reminder of the importance of civic engagement in the ongoing struggle for justice and democracy. It encourages future generations to reflect on the lessons learned and to continue advocating for genuine change. The echoes of "people power" and the continuing struggle remind Filipinos that the fight for national liberation, democracy, and social justice is not merely a historical event but an ongoing journey, one that requires vigilance, participation, and a commitment to the ideals of justice and equality. In doing so, that legacy of struggle can inspire a renewed commitment to the principles it championed, ensuring that the revolutionary spirit lives on.