Of Glory Over Bread:
Marcos’ ‘Revolt of the Poor’
in a JoséAntonian and Peronist Lens
The legacy of Ferdinand Marcos is intrinsically linked to his promise of a revolution from the center, which he claimed would lead to the transformation of the Philippines into a New Society. Central to his narrative was the claim that this revolution was for the benefit of the poor, whom he presented as the beneficiaries of the sweeping reforms brought by Martial Law. Yet, when we scrutinize Marcos’ rhetoric and actions through the lens of José Antonio Primo de Rivera and Juan Perón, a different picture emerges—one of a revolution that was more performative than substantive, a revolution that appropriated populist language but ultimately served elite interests.
Marcos' Fascination with Populism
Adrian Cristobal, one of Marcos’ key aides, offers a glimpse into the former president's thinking on the eve of Martial Law.
As Cristobal recounted, "That Friday night, September 22, I was packing my bags. I was all set to fly to Argentina the following day. I saw Marcos that morning, and he was effusive. ‘Make sure you study Peronism, ha. We may need something like that before my term expires.’ I said ‘Yes, Sir.’ And I meant it."
This reflection reveals Marcos’ admiration for Juan Perón, the Argentine leader who, through his "Justicialismo" movement, sought to bridge the divide between labor and capital while elevating the working class.
However, while Marcos may have been enamored with "Peronism", what he implemented in the Philippines was a distorted, even bastardised version of it. In Argentina, Perón emphasized the need for social reforms that would empower the poor and uplift the nation through meaningful labor rights, social welfare programs, and economic justice. Perón believed that "The nation is not for bread alone, but for glory,” signaling that promoting national prosperity and upholding national dignity must go hand-in-hand. “In our movement,” he once said, “the worker comes first, because without him, nothing would exist.”
Marcos, by contrast, appropriated the language of "revolution" and "social justice", but his policies largely reinforced the existing "elite structures". Under the guise of the "New Society", crony capitalism flourished, with a handful of Marcos' allies benefiting from state contracts, while the broader population suffered under the heavy hand of the military. "Justicialism" as Perón envisioned it was centered on the working class and aimed at building a just society, but "Marcosianism was primarily concerned with maintaining political control and quelling dissent".
José Antonio Primo de Rivera and Marcos’ Rhetoric
The possible influence of José Antonio Primo de Rivera founder of the Spanish Falange, also sheds light on Marcos’ use of revolutionary rhetoric to justify authoritarianism. Primo de Rivera argued that “A nation is not a mere territory; it is a mission to be fulfilled," emphasizing that a nation’s purpose must go beyond just material needs to fulfill a higher mission of unity and glory. Marcos echoed this sentiment by framing Martial Law as necessary for guiding the Philippines toward its "national mission", promising that his regime would "restore order" and "deliver progress".
However, while Primo de Rivera warned against leaders who used revolutionary rhetoric to gain power without delivering true change, Marcos did exactly that. Primo de Rivera’s words are sharp in their critique of such performative acts: “No one who is proud of himself dares to say: ‘I am a revolutionary.’ A revolutionary never says it: he does it.” Marcos claimed to lead a "revolt for the poor", but his actions were more concerned with maintaining political power than with addressing the deep inequalities in Philippine society.
Moreover, Primo de Rivera warned against becoming mere "custodians of the old regime," a point that is especially relevant to Marcos’ betrayal of his "revolutionary promises". Despite his claims of dismantling the oligarchy, Marcos entrenched the power of the elite including his own family and close allies. Cronyism and corruption became hallmarks of the regime, creating new forms of inequality and repression rather than fostering the genuine social transformation he had promised.
The Hollow Revolution: A Performative Act?
What becomes clear is that Marcos’ "revolution" was more performative than genuine. The rhetoric of revolution, social justice, and national unity was used as a tool of control, allowing Marcos to justify Martial Law as a necessary step in building a "New Society". However, in practice, this so-called "revolution" did little to uplift the poor or transform society in any meaningful way, let alone piecemeal ones in a form of compromised decrees. As José Antonio Primo de Rivera might have observed, the Marcosian "revolution" was revolutionary in name only, its true purpose being to sustain the power of the state".
How could it say so? True that the "revolution" through martial law has brought semblance of development through infrastructure, trade, investment, to that of subsidised rice, foodstuffs, and the likes Marcos himself once disagree in his earlier term as president. But knowing that Martial Law- in Marcos's view was also a "revolutionary" act, he ought to transform the state into a "revolutionary" arm with its constituent and ministrant functions. Otherwise, Marcos himself hijacks the idea of "revolution", turning it into his own act by claiming the revolution as also his as that of those who demand it.
In contrast, leaders like Juan Perón recognized that nation-building and social justice require more than just rhetoric. They demand a deep commitment to empowering the marginalized, improving living conditions, and ensuring that workers have a voice. Perón's belief that “The worker is the backbone of the nation” reflects a philosophy that prioritizes action over words, focusing on delivering real change to the people who need it most.
Conclusion: Nation-Building is Not a Performative Act
The experience of Martial Law under Marcos offers a stark reminder that nation-building, and the pursuit of social justice, is not a performative act. It requires more than just lofty speeches or the appropriation of revolutionary symbols—it demands serious commitment to the people as a nation. Juan Perón once remarked, “A true leader is one who places the interests of the people above his own.” Marcos, despite his claims of leading a "revolution for the poor", ultimately placed his own political survival above the needs of the Filipino people.
Nation-building is not about centralized control or the mere appearance of revolution. It is about fostering a genuine social transformation, where the people’s welfare, rights, and dignity are prioritized. For José Antonio Primo de Rivera, this meant fulfilling a nation’s higher mission. For Juan Perón, it meant empowering the working class. And for Marcos, though he borrowed from these leaders’ rhetoric, the reality of his rule reflected a bastardized version of these ideals—a revolution in name, but authoritarianism in practice.
That until today these remnants continue- be it on the guise of "political reform" to that of gutter level implementation of "law and order". Of course, these will employ populist rhetoric and piecemeal-yet-compromised forms of social action/amelioriation to silence dissent. It happened under Quezon with his "social justice", or Magsaysay being a CIA-made "man of the masses", but Marcos really employed revolutionary rhetoric in an attempt to hijack the revolutionary aspirations of the people under his favour. And it was not suprising that succeeding regimes would employ as such ventures but to consolidate the interests of the ruling few.
In the end, the lesson is clear: the hijacking of people’s aspirations for personal or political gain is an affront to the very principles of nationhood and its desire for justice. True nation-building is a serious, long-term commitment to serving the people, ensuring their social rights, and creating a society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive—not just the few in power.