"The Betrayal of EDSA: A 'Revolution' Unfulfilled"
The EDSA People Power Revolution of 1986 is often celebrated as a triumph of democracy, the people’s will rising up to overthrow the oppressive Marcos dictatorship. Yet, beneath the surface of this historic moment lies a truth that often goes unexamined—a truth that suggests that the revolution did not fulfill its promises but instead, tragically, merely shifted the same power structures into new forms. What EDSA truly achieved, some might argue, was not a break from the past, but the entrenchment of elite rule, a system that continues to benefit a select few while leaving the vast majority of Filipinos still struggling for justice and equality.
From the moment the Marcos regime crumbled, the hope for change was palpable. However, what followed was a reconfiguration, not a dismantling, of the status quo. The same political dynasties, the same powerful families, and the same entrenched elites who once supported Marcos now found themselves embedded within a supposedly democratic framework, continuing to control the political and economic systems of the country. The rhetoric of democracy, justice, and reform, so passionately voiced by those who rose against tyranny, quickly became a mere façade. Under the guise of democratic governance, the old order was preserved, and the promises of EDSA—the promises of true freedom and equality—remained elusive.
While the streets of EDSA saw an outpouring of hope and collective action, the aftermath of the revolution proved less rosy. Instead of real structural change, what emerged was a political and economic system that still served the few, leaving the majority of Filipinos no better off than before. The elite, having been dislodged from their former dictatorial power, simply adapted to the new order, ensuring that their hold on wealth and influence remained intact. For the poor and marginalized, the promises of the revolution were not realized; the same injustices that sparked the uprising in the first place continued to haunt them.
In the wake of EDSA, the question of economic policy became central. The Philippines, under successive post-revolutionary governments, embraced neoliberal policies that prioritized the market over the state. These policies—privatization, deregulation, and liberalization of trade—were seen as the key to prosperity. Yet, this free-market approach ignored the realities of the country’s deeply unequal society. The poor were left behind as wealth continued to concentrate in the hands of a few. Meanwhile, the elites who had once served under Marcos were now the chief advocates of these market-driven principles, continuing to shape the economy to their benefit, rather than to serve the needs of the people.
Ironically, the Philippines, in its pursuit of neoliberalism, found itself echoing the very policies that had been in place under the Marcos regime. The embrace of free-market capitalism—while promising growth—failed to lift the majority of Filipinos out of poverty. In contrast, nations like Vietnam, which had adopted state-directed economic policies, saw tremendous progress. Vietnam, despite its history of war and hardship, had managed to consolidate its socialist-oriented policies, which in turn propelled its remarkable economic growth in recent years. This success story stood in stark contrast to the economic stagnation in the Philippines. And yet, despite the clear evidence of Vietnam's success, critics like Tiglao, who are often quick to condemn socialist or communist policies, found themselves citing Vietnam’s achievements in the same breath. This paradox underscores the deep contradictions in the ongoing discourse about development in the Philippines: how can one reject a model of socioeconomic success while using its success as an example?
This contradiction is a reflection of the deeper problem facing the Philippines today: the abandonment of EDSA's original ideals. The revolution was not only about removing a dictator; it was about confronting the systems that had allowed that dictatorship to thrive. It was about breaking the power of the elite and dismantling the economic and political structures that kept the people oppressed. Yet, in the end, the elites were not defeated; they were merely given new tools to perpetuate their rule.
To remember EDSA is not to look back with nostalgia, but to acknowledge that its full potential has not been realized. The revolution's true goal—a just society for all—remains a distant dream. It is not enough to commemorate the event; one must continue the struggle for the ideals that EDSA represented. To forget this is to allow the revolution’s meaning to be hollowed out, to let it become nothing more than a historical footnote.