The Unfolding of Ironies in Philippine Politics in the Recent Times
By: Bert Junrie B. Espina
Before we delve into this topic, I would like to start with an anecdote from an ancient Mesopotamian tale — titled “The Appointment in Samarra” — which was retold by W. Somerset Maugham in 1933. The short story goes like this:
(the speaker is Death) There was a merchant in Baghdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little while the servant came back, pale and trembling, and said, “Master, just now when I was in the marketplace I was jostled by a woman in the crowd, and when I turned, I saw it was Death that jostled me. She looked at me and made a threatening gesture, now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me.” The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the marketplace and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, “Why did you make a threatening gesture to my servant when you saw him this morning?” “That was not a threatening gesture,” I said, it was only a start of surprise. “I was astonished to see him in Baghdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra.”
In general, why is it that the very thing which we always try to avoid would lead us precisely into that course of path? What if the servant did not encounter Death at the market in Baghdad, or if Death was just waiting for him in Samarra, would it convince him to go to Samarra and meet his own demise? Or what if, instead of fleeing from Death, he stayed with her [Death] at the marketplace, could he be unbound of his fate? The irony here is that it is exactly the servant’s precaution to evade death that led him to the arms of Death. Even Death was surprised to see the servant at the market when they were supposed to meet in Samarra, and by this event of their meeting at the wrong moment, created the subjective conditions by which the servant would die in Samarra.
Let’s relate this anecdote to the History of Philippine politics, particularly during the rise of the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. when he imposed Martial law in the Philippines that resulted in many turning events in the post-EDSA Revolution. (I know that this topic will certainly spark a debate, but please bear with me for wrapping up the whole point that I am going to make.) According to the late Pres. Marcos, Martial law was imposed in response not only to the social unrest in the country but also to his fear of the impact during the Global Cold War that the influence of Communism in the Philippines would continue to spread. However, the irony is that the idea that Martial law should prevent the expansion of communist ideals and contain the social unrest in the country, had in both aspects led to the proliferation of the Communist party in the country and the creation towards more social unrest which sparked a bloodbath in the country. If we take the perspective that Marcos implemented a Martial law to maintain his power in the government, still it would show us the irony that the idea ‘that Martial law would keep his power’ had eventually turned the tables against him that marked his own downfall. In addition, this was also fueled by the assassination of Ninoy Aquino in 1983, who was Marcos’s eminent political adversary. In all these events, we can simply go on and on, but what is fundamental is that what he [Marcos] sought to be denied was affirmed and vice versa.
Subsequently, after the many issues of violation of human rights, corruption, and social injustices during the Martial law, the struggle was continued by Ninoy Aquino’s wife that later became the president, late President Corazon C. Aquino, with her banner of fighting the dictatorial rule of Marcos and rebuild democracy and social order in the country. After her success of deposing Marcos, the ratification of a new Constitution ensued that some provisions were created that said to prevent another dictator from arising and for the protection of human rights. While she was considered a heroine by many for her role of deposing the dictatorial rule of Marcos, nothing is less true that it was also her office which opened the doors and made it possible for the restoration of the families and the power structures whom Marcos eagerly wanted to prevent — namely, the post-colonial Filipino oligarchy — like Aquino herself who was from a wealthy and influential Chinese mestizo family, the Cojuangcos, which owned a 6,000-hectare hacienda. The promise to create a new order was merely a transition from old to new oligarchy after they had gained significant control and political strong influence in the government more than before, which later ensued political turmoil among the populace. By this turn of events, a social upheaval had developed between the ruling elites and the working class. The social order that was promised had never been realized as social unrest was exacerbated by the irreconcilable conflict between the Communists and the Philippine Army who had frail loyalty to Aquino. After a period of time, the failures to undertake the fundamental economic and social reforms, which ultimately led to the betrayal of the promise to bring social reforms and protection of human rights that the working class were hoping for in the post-EDSA Revolution, had stirred an outcry for the return of what they described as the “golden-age” during the Marcos regime — even though in reality we know that this is just a false nostalgia.
The 1987 Constitution that was ratified during the presidency of Aquino was mainly a reaction against the more than two-decade dictatorship of Marcos Sr., and thereby to prevent another dictator from coming into power. But what is ironic here is that it failed to fulfill its own purpose of preventing such — as we saw in the recent years when former President Duterte came to power. We all witnessed a much more radical president than Marcos who [Duterte] never shies away from being described as a dictator. Indeed, Duterte was even more vocal to killings with his campaigns against the war on drugs. Here is the dialectical movement, and the irony, because it is the very type of strongman that the government of Aquino, through 1987 Constitution, seeks to prevent has itself provided the conditions or path for this strongman to rule. And the very persistence of claiming Duterte as a dictator is universalized in a way that he is no longer fitted to the criteria of being a dictator. — For a moment, I would like to propound another anecdote from Roman history as used by Hegel in making a point to his theory of History: think about the assassination of Julius Caesar. The idea that the “death of Caesar” was supposed to preserve the Republic, as regarded by the Senators that Caesar was the sole threat to the principles of the Republic, and by eliminating him they would be able to restore the Republic. But what is so ironic is that the “death of Caesar” initiated the Augustinian rule [known as ‘Octavian’] that later opened doors for the Age of Emperors and thereby ending the Republic. What is perceived as the obstacle [Caesar] to the Republic becomes the very way in which the Republic is doomed. — Now we can see the whole point of the logic of this theory, almost identical to what we know about in the history of the Philippine politics. We know that Aquino and her believers saw Marcos as the sole threat to the principles of Democracy and Human Rights, and thereby pledged to dismantle the dictatorial government of Marcos through the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986 and hoped to prevent the return of the Marcoses and another Marcos-like president to sit at the Malacañang Palace; and yet, ironically, the removal of Marcos initiated years after a much more radical strongman than Marcos himself who came after him, viz. Duterte. Just like after the death of Caesar that initiated the Augustinian rule which later opened the doors to the Age of Emperors, it was also Duterte who closed the gap for the return of the Marcoses when the son Bong-Bong Marcos won the 2022 Philippine general election. The followers of Aquino have succeeded more than enough for demonizing the dictatorship of Marcos that ironically the demons themselves have been summoned for their return. This is the negation of the negation which reaffirms what was supposed to be denied.
Moreover, the idea that the 1987 Constitution should be able to preserve the principles of Democracy and to prevent another Marcos to return to power has itself made the conditions for the Marcoses to have returned to the Malacañang Palace. It is like a snake eating its own tail. Marlen Ronquillo published an article in ‘The Manila Times’ last December 24, 2023, he wrote: “Nothing is wrong with the 1987 Constitution. The only problem is we have a set of political scumbags and scalawags, making it a perennial scapegoat for their many official failings.” My question is that, if there is really nothing wrong with the 1987 Constitution, then why does it continuously fail to set-up a defense against these political scumbags and scalawags whom he described? Why is it that these political scumbags and scalawags are still enjoying to hold so much power in a bad way if there is really nothing wrong with the constitution? Isn’t that the purpose of a constitution as a social contract is to protect its subjects from these political scumbags and scalawags? This is not to say that the reason is merely due to its own failure to make the 1987 Constitution as infallible, rather the failure is made manifest due to its own righteousness that it perceives itself as infallible.8 It is, therefore, their persistence of ignoring its own failure to realize the internal limitations which opened up the space for these types of political scumbags and scalawags. Yet, it is also this ‘failure to realize to reach beyond the internal limitations’ retroactively posits the presuppositions by which what should be done is realized.
All that is left today is the 1987 Constitution. The once well-known Aquino government and its crusaders for dismantling Marcos and his cohorts has steadily dwindled since the post-EDSA Revolution, as we saw recently how most of the pro-Aquino candidates lost in the elections. Have we now arrived at the endpoint of history? Of course, no. We have instead arrived at the pivotal historical moment in the Philippine political drama today.10 The Marcos government has already made several proposals to change the 1987 Constitution. This vivifies my curiosity about this development: Why would he try to change it when it is the one which set the preconditions for the return of his family to power? His own desperate actions of changing it may only jeopardize himself, unaware that it would only be his own doing which will put into reality the original intentions of the 1987 Constitution of barring the return of the Marcoses, i.e. he will only end up like a snake eating its own tail. (Just trying to create some pun for that remark but a hint to the gist of our topic) What is his motivation for changing it? Is there an attempt to prevent something or someone? Lest we forget that it was Duterte, through his daughter, who opened the door for the return of the Marcoses; but even despite the fact that Bong-Bong Marcos became a president, Duterte is still more popular than him. Will Bong-Bong Marcos see Duterte as a threat to his future political ambitions? Recently, we have witnessed a gradual disintegration of the Team UniTEAM as their relationship turns sour, and their disagreements continue to grow each day. I personally think of this from the start an inevitable thing to happen in the future that upon knowing it recently, it did not surprise me at all. For one thing, we have to acknowledge how history is written. The imminent unfolding of history is always driven by human passions and subjectivities in a contradictory manner. As we can see in our concise yet thorough discussion here on this subject has made us realize the back-and-forth swinging of the two opposing political parties which progresses over time, particularly from the Martial law era to the post-EDSA revolution. At this point, if this tension between the two political families [Marcos and Duterte] continues to grow, who between them will prevail? Or what will happen next? If these two political factions clash, will it lead us to an emergence of new era and liberate us from the dark shackles of the Martial law and post-EDSA Revolution? Is the return of the pro-Aquino faction possible, or will it only be wiped out from being one of the key players in the Philippine political arena? To be frank, I do not have yet the answers of those questions. Besides, who has other than doing speculations? It is axiomatic that knowledge only comes later when all the events already took place. As Hegel wrote: “The owl of Minerva [representing the Greek goddess of wisdom] spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.”
More than 9 months have passed since I wrote the above-article, and it seems that the prophecy has come into reality.
References:
i Chapman, W. (1979, April 2). Marcos supports alliance with U.S. The Washington Post.
ii Steven Shirley, Guided By God: The Legacy of the Catholic Church in Philippine Politics (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2004).
Marc R. Thompson, “Presidentas and ‘People Power’ in the Philippines: Corazon C. Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,” Dynasties and Female Political Leaders in Asia, eds. Claudia Derichs and Mark R. Thompson (Zurich: Lit Verlag, 2013), p. 151–190.
iii Doronila, A. (2013, February 25). Transition from old to new oligarchy. Philippine Daily Inquirer.
iv Punongbayan, JC. (2023, February 24). Undoing ‘false nostalgia’ about the Marcos years. Rappler.
v Ronquillo, M. (2023, December 24). Scapegoating the Constitution. The Manila Times.
vi Salgado, J. (2024, Jan. 3). Marcos’ disengagement from Duterte sets stage for 2025 showdown. Rappler.
