"Democracy as Revolution?
Or Redescribing Orderism as Revolution?"
Or Redescribing Orderism as Revolution?"
(Thoughts after 52 Years of Martial Law in the Philippines)
The declaration of Martial Law in the Philippines on September 21, 1972, remains a pivotal moment in the country’s history. Fifty-two years later, its legacy is still being debated and redefined by different administrations. At the heart of this debate are two competing visions of revolution and governance: "democracy as an ongoing revolution" and orderism—an authoritarian response often cast as a revolutionary effort in its own right. The legacy of Martial Law continues to shape Philippine political discourse, as successive leaders adopt and manipulate revolutionary rhetoric to suit their own ends.
Democracy as an Ongoing Revolution
For many, democracy is not a static concept but an ongoing revolution—a process of constant change driven by the people's desire for freedom, justice, and equality. In the Philippines, this revolutionary impulse has manifested in key moments like the 1986 EDSA "People Power Revolution", which ousted the Marcos dictatorship without violence. To its proponents, democracy is a collective struggle for human rights, equitable opportunities, and social justice, and the revolution doesn't end with a single event or regime change—it continues as long as there is oppression and inequality.
The promise of democracy is in its power to enable the people to challenge entrenched systems of power, demand accountability, and drive reforms that benefit the wider population. But in the years following EDSA, many have come to question whether this revolutionary ideal has been hijacked by those in power. The democratization process, for all its promise, has often been marred by the persistence of the same elite-dominated structures it sought to dismantle.
Orderism as a Revolutionary Narrative
In contrast, the authoritarian narrative framed by Ferdinand E. Marcos and others casts order as a necessary precursor to progress. In his book, "The Democratic Revolution in the Philippines," Marcos famously redefined revolution as a "constitutional, peaceful, and legal" process, claiming that his declaration of Martial Law was a "revolution from the center." He positioned his rule as a "rebellion of the poor" that would culminate in a "New Society"—a vision of national unity and development guided by his centralized authority.
Marcos' approach reframed revolution as a means to achieve order and stability, rather than a challenge to an unjust system. This orderism used the threat of chaos and social unrest to justify the suspension of democratic rights, including freedom of speech and the right to dissent. By invoking the rhetoric of revolution, Marcos co-opted a language traditionally associated with liberation to legitimize his authoritarian rule.
For his critics, this was an ironic perversion of revolutionary ideals. Instead of empowering the masses, Marcos’ brand of revolution entrenched power in the hands of the state, suppressing the very freedoms that genuine revolutionaries sought to protect. His "revolution from the center" served more as a tool for consolidating his authority than as a means to achieve meaningful social transformation.
Redefining "Revolution" and Neutralizing Dissent
The tension in Marcos' use of "democracy" and "revolution" highlights how language can be manipulated to neutralize dissent. By casting his regime as a revolutionary one, he co-opted the language of resistance, framing himself as a "reformer" rather than a dictator. This rhetorical shift made it harder for his critics to challenge his rule, as the very terms of revolution were redefined to suit the regime's agenda.
In subsequent administrations, the legacy of Martial Law has endured in different forms. Both Aquino’s reformist government and Duterte’s strongman rule have appropriated revolutionary rhetoric to justify their policies.
Aquino’s administration promoted itself as the continuation of the People Power spirit, but in practice, it often failed to challenge the "structural inequalities" and "elite dominance" of the political system. Reforms were often piecemeal, designed to placate public discontent without addressing deeper systemic issues.
Similarly, Duterte’s administration embraced the language of revolution to promote "law and order", but its version of revolution was built on fear, intimidation, and authoritarianism. Duterte presented his approach as a necessary antidote to chaos, much like Marcos did during Martial Law, yet it similarly suppressed democratic freedoms, framing "violent suppression" and "executive control" as revolutionary solutions to national problems.
Rhetoric as a Tool for Control
This "hijacking of revolutionary language" has become a tool for maintaining power across different administrations. Both Marcos and Duterte employed revolutionary rhetoric to disguise their authoritarian tendencies under the guise of fulfilling the people’s aspirations. They positioned their rule as a response to disorder, presenting stability as the ultimate revolutionary outcome.
Even the more reformist Aquino administration, while not explicitly authoritarian, used the rhetoric of "change and reform" to justify incremental rather than fundamental shifts in governance. These efforts to pacify dissent through piecemeal changes rather than addressing the deeper demands for systemic transformation reflect a broader strategy of neutralizing opposition while maintaining the status quo.
The ruling order, whether authoritarian or reformist, tends to appeal to the masses by suggesting that the system, despite its flaws, works to their benefit. This rhetoric claims that the government is capable of delivering a better life, thereby discouraging any radical calls for change. The masses, the system argues, are satisfied with piecemeal improvements and have no demand for fundamental change, thus silencing dissent and reducing revolutionary aspirations to mere rhetorical devices.
Conclusion: A Call to Reclaim Revolution
In conclusion, the manipulation of revolutionary ideals in the Philippines serves as a tool for maintaining the ruling order’s grip on power. From Marcos' revolution from the center to Aquino’s reformist promises and Duterte’s rule by law, successive administrations have co-opted the language of revolution to appeal to the masses, particularly during times of crisis. However, this appropriation of revolutionary rhetoric has resulted in the dilution of true democratic aspirations, reducing them to rhetorical appeals meant to pacify dissent rather than inspire genuine change.
The masses, promised incremental improvements, have often been presented with the illusion that their demands have been met, while the "underlying power structures" remain largely intact. This continued "hijacking of revolutionary language" highlights the need for the Filipino people to "reclaim the true meaning of revolution". Genuine democracy and revolution are not about order imposed from above and its continuity, but about liberation, participation, and systemic change driven by and for the people.
The struggle between today's democracy and orderism reflects a broader conflict over the future of the Philippines—a future where the people’s right to revolution and self-determination must be reclaimed from the hands of those who seek to use it to maintain their own power. It is a call to renew the revolutionary spirit that values freedom, justice, and equality for all, ensuring that the people's aspirations for genuine change are no longer reduced to empty rhetoric but transformed into meaningful action.