Historical and Rhetorical Context: Research Paper

Libby Willis

Dr. Brown

English 306

April 7, 2016

The People Power Movement of 1986

Historical Context

A country originally colonized for the expansion of capitalistic European trade and the extraction of local resources, the Philippine natives have endured many rulers and flavors of subjugation. In the 1500s, the Philippines were officially colonized by Spain, a country that was trying to expand its trade routes into Asia. What Spain originally encountered was small tribes spread across the islands, largely divided and without any real social or cultural cohesion (Goodno 18). Spain imposed their religion, Roman Catholicism, on the natives to “control the population” (Goodno 20). Catholicism, with its strong-willed and almighty God, acted to reconcile any cultural chasms between the tribes and gave the Spaniards almost complete power over their conquered population. Although culturally Catholicism was very useful, it ended up playing an even larger role in the government, ultimately leading to resentment between the native people and their Spanish rulers (Goodno 21).

            As prevalent as the Catholic faith was in the early years, it was not until the end of the 1700s and into the early 1800s that “nativist priests” began to increase in numbers (Goodno 27). By this time, the cohesive nation of the Philippines was starting to take shape. Nationalist pride became entrenched in the only institution that the entire population had in common: the Catholic Church. It wasn’t until the Spanish-American War in the later 1800s that Spanish rule was challenged and eventually overcome. With the United States in charge, Christianity continued to flourish. The ultimate goal of Americas’ rule over the Philippines, according to President William McKinley, was to “educate the Filipino and uplift and civilize and Christianize them” (Goodno 32). A surprise takeover by Japan during World War II set back the Philippines in terms of independence until after the war was over. It was not until 1946 that the United States finally declared the Philippines an independent nation (Goodno 42).

            Although independence was the ultimate goal for all Filipinos, sovereignty ended up causing more problems than it solved. The wide gap between the rich and the poor continued to grow, as did resentment among the lower class that lived in unceasing poverty. During this time, Ferdinand Marcos and Benigno Aquino Jr., two men from very different backgrounds, were just beginning to endeavor on their political journeys.

Marcos came from a family that was self-made: his father, Mariano Marcos, began life as a teacher and ended life as a lawyer and politician (Goodno 52). Marcos was attracted to power from an extremely early age, becoming a lawyer just like his father, and marrying a daughter of a wealthy and well-known Catholic Filipino family. A member of one of the native religions originally, Marcos made sure to be baptized a Catholic before entering the realm of politics (Goodno 53). After multiple terms in the Filipino Congress, Marcos was elected president in 1965, amid rumors of bribery and corruption (Crisostomo 15). The low status of his upbringing came back to haunt him in the early days of his presidency because he was unable to gain the support of the truly elite in society. Feeling threatened by those who were in power against him, Marcos “wanted to co-opt or destroy all opposition” (Goodno 54). He achieved this early on by “shrewdly neutralizing the Lopez family, which controlled a sugar empire” (Goodno 54). The ownership of agriculture was a relevant and powerful symbol for wealth in the Philippines, so by asking the head of the Lopez family to be his vice president, Marcos set himself up to gain a powerful ally who brought “great influence and money” to the Marcos administration (Hill and Hill 4). 

Benigno Aquino, Jr, affectionately called “Ninoy” by his family, had a different upbringing when compared to Marcos. Ninoy was born to a well-known politician with many brothers and sisters and enough money and prestige to be classified as “elite” in Filipino society (Goodno 55). However, just like Marcos, Ninoy wished to advance in society via an advantageous marriage. Corazon “Cory” Cojuangco was from his “home town” and came “from the large Cojuangco sugar growing family” (Hill and Hill 4). Cory made the perfect wife for an aspiring politician like Ninoy, and the two married at the age of 21. Ninoy went on to become the “youngest Senator in the Philippines” at the age of 34, paving the way for him to run for President in the elections of 1973 (Hill and Hill 5).

During Marcos’s first term, resentment between social classes grew and groups that historically banded together on political issues (i.e. the elite) actually “split into […] factions” due to Marcos’s “own brand of capitalism” (Goodno 57). Essentially, Marcos prioritized political friends in terms of economic representation and left the rest of the Filipino population to their own devices. Due to the desperation many felt in regards to the economic state of their country, Communism saw a rise in favor and political power during this time. Organizations such as the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and Patriotic Youth (KM) grew in popularity, spurring rebellion against the Marcos administration (Goodno 57). Despite this, Marcos continued to hold enough power and appeal to be reelected for a second term in 1969, the only President in the history of the Philippines to achieve reelection. To do this, Marcos “spent between $50 and $100 million in public and private funds,” utilizing all sources of media and creating public work projects in areas with high voting percentages (Goodno 59). Although Marcos was reelected, he failed to consider how his use of money would impact his public appeal. With so much debt racked up, Marcos was forced to ask for a loan from the International Monetary Fund, in exchange for the “devaluation of the peso” (Goodno 59). This incited violence from many communist rebel groups as “fuel prices increased, food shortages, unemployment, and unrest” all made its way to the Presidents doorstep (Goodno xii).

The key turning point happened in 1971, when a political rally for the Liberal Party, “the party running in opposition to Marcos’ Nationalistas” was bombed by an unknown source (Hill and Hill 7). Many blamed Marcos and his government cronies, but Marcos blamed the rebels within the Communist party. He used this event to “swiftly […] curtail civil liberties” by taking control of all media outlets, arresting those who were seen as rebel leaders and holding them without a trial (including Ninoy Aquino, his current political archrival), and eventually declaring martial law in, as Marcos states, “the name of freedom and revolution” (Crisosotomo 162). This rapid change in power turned the democracy the Philippines had into a bona fide dictatorship, led by Marcos himself. Conveniently, it allowed Marcos to remain in power indefinitely, despite being unable to democratically run for a third term as prevented by the Filipino constitution. The bombing, and the actions taken after by Marcos’ administration, represents the inception of the People Power Movement in the Philippines, pushing those who were not historically politically active into the realm of governmental protest.

Fast forward to 1980, when Ninoy Aquino was released from his unlawful political imprisonment for a surgery to be performed in the United States. He remained exiled in the US for three years, talking extensively about the corruption in his mother country. Marcos “lifted martial law in January, 1981,” although not much changed in terms of daily life (Hill and Hill 17). “Hoping to come home to attempt a peaceful reconciliation and improvement of life,” Ninoy flew back to Manila (Hill and Hill 17). Within “50 seconds” of Ninoy rising from his seat and exiting the plane, he was assassinated (Hill and Hill 29). This would be the second turning point in the revolution against Marcos and his government.

Fed up with the corruption and lies, not to mention the total control that Marcos exercised over the Filipino population, many groups turned to Cory Aquino, the wife of martyred Ninoy Aquino, to help the nation to its feet again. Many Filipinos believed that if they ousted Marcos, democracy would resume. Because of this, there continued to be a rise in Communism sympathizers during the initial portion of the crisis. When the Church began speaking out against the attacks on human rights, of which the Marcos government was responsible for, Marcos deemed the Church an adversary. However, with 84 percent of the population identifying as Catholic, Marcos had chosen a formidable enemy; this would prove to be the downfall of his arguably successful run as dictator of the Philippines.

Rhetorical Context

            The persuasive control of the People Power Movement in the Philippines was impacted by many factors. It can be argued that a convincing majority of people were on the side of the rebel groups advocating for the overthrow of Marcos because of a resilient Filipino identity, often referred to as Filipino nationalism. Even more important to the movement was the Catholic Church, an institution that helped bring together Filipinos from a broad spectrum of socioeconomic classes in a protest that was largely peaceful and very much orchestrated by the leadership of the Church.

            To truly understand the movement in the Philippines, the protest classification of “people power” needs to be defined. One of the main components of people power is the nonviolent nature of the protest. Often synonymous with the term “unarmed insurrections,” people power is exactly what it sounds like: the power of masses of people, raising their voice to be heard against an oppressive force, where “civilians […] are the main actors in the struggle” (Schock xvi). It is tremendously important to note that the military does not take a leadership role in this kind of protest. And, even though the opposition is committed to nonviolent protest, that fact does nothing to stop “violence by authorities,” where the term ‘authorities’ is referring to government officials (Schock xvi). Thus, while people power is comprised of peaceful tactics enacted by civilians, the entire movement may be marred by violence on the part of the government.

In the case of the Philippines, people power seemed to be unexpected in some ways but not surprising in others. After Ninoy’s assassination, the people lost their patience with Marcos’ government. People power was a genuine reaction from the Filipino population, arising from a place that was sincere in its opposition to the oppression they had experienced for 15 years. “’People power’ was not a military, communist, or social democratic conspiracy […] it was the culmination of a mass movement” and this is, arguably, what made the protest so effective in terms of other people power movements throughout history (Thompson 404). The efficacy of the movement is also seen in the varied “range of methods implemented by the movement enhanc[ing] their ability to sustain the challenges” (Schock 81). For example, the use of a clean election committee to keep the presidential elections of 1986 honest is a different protest strategy than the human barricade formed in the last four days of the protest. These varied methods, all nonviolent in nature, helped to attack the opposition in diverse ways. In short, the Filipino people were smart about their use of people power; they managed to save many lives from a possibly bloody situation without compromising the efficacy and ultimate success of their protest.

Armed with the knowledge that the protest was essentially for the people and by the people, the leaders of the protest used this sense of collective identity, where “the individual ‘I’-s somehow collapse, or dissolve, into a collective ‘we’” in order to create a space where all protesters are engaged (Milan 892). Once Cory Aquino announced her candidacy for the position of president, running against Marcos himself, she immediately began to make plans to bolster that collective identity. Throughout the protest, the collective identity became not just people who were Filipino and oppressed, but specifically people who self identified as Catholic. Faith played a tremendous part in this movement, due in part to many in the clergy taking an integral role in the planning and execution of protest events. Cory Aquino’s “first step of the mass action campaign was a ‘Triumph of the People’ prayer rally,” signaling to all that the protest would don a religious identity from the very beginning (Komisar 102). Based on the turnout of that initial rally, the reliance on faith paid off for Cory and this gave her “the boost she needed” in a mental sense because she was such an inexperienced politician (Komisar 102). From then on, the collective identity that Cory had generated to create the people power effect served her well. With “no television [and] scarcely any radio coverage, she relied on the [people] to whip up enthusiasm” amongst those who were still undecided about the movement (Buss 28). This action helped her supporters feel as though they were an integral part of her campaign and it gave Cory the confidence she needed, knowing that she was the people’s choice.

             The true people power was demonstrated during the peak of the protest. Heeding the call for help from Archbishop Cardinal Sin, a well respected leader of the Clergy in Manila, nuns and other representatives of the Catholic Church, as well as “vast hordes” of the  “non-political faithful” identity, rallied behind Cory in a startling yet influential way (Johnson 82). Protestors from all parts of the Philippines flooded into Manila to show their support for the overthrow of their dictator. People who were dedicated revolutionaries were thrown together with people who did not fully support Cory and her quest for the presidency. This unforeseen variance among the protestors seems surprising on the surface until a common theme unites them: the Catholic Church. These protestors formed a human barricade through one of the busiest streets of the nation’s capital, preventing the still loyal military from driving their tanks through the city. The tremendous influx of protestors sent by Cardinal Sin resulted in a more persuasive moment of body rhetoric: “The various religious orders [present] lent immediate form to the human barricades, turning potential chaos into a well-ordered campground” (Hayman 23; Johnson 83).

The number of people as well as the types of people who responded to Cardinal Sin’s call to action was much needed in terms of the movement’s ultimate success in overthrowing Marcos. The creation of a human barricade was powerful for both sides of the movement. The barricade unified the opposition in a way that the government was not expecting, visually showing Marcos that the people of the Philippines were not to be underestimated or thought of as divided. It also gave those who were a part of the barricade a sense of real community, solidifying the collective ‘we.’ After all, one person standing in front of a tank is laughable, but one million people standing in front of that same tank? Now that’s persuasion in the purest sense.

            Perhaps the most persuasive form of rhetoric attributed to the human barricade came from one simple sentence stated by a nun taking part in the protest.  While the Marcos-loyal military officers were staring down the barrels of their guns pointed straight at the protestors, many people began chanting “CO-RY! CO-RY! CO-RY!” which verbally added to the rhetoric-laden situation and directly showed their support for their democratic candidate (Johnson 108). Once that had died down, one nun pleaded to any soldier within hearing distance “We are all Filipinos. Please do not kill us.” (Johnson 108). This modest sentence gets to the heart of what the true meaning of the human barricade was for those involved. It proves that the collective identity in this case had two layers, one that was faith based (Catholicism) and one that was nationality based (Filipino). Those with and without faith, men and women, were all united for those four days of protesting, resolute in their decision to peacefully rebel against their oppressive dictator. Both body rhetoric, the act of many people occupying a single public space to show their support for a cause, and verbal rhetoric were used to solidify a community with a common purpose and a common identity. This commonality was a defining, and ultimately successful, characteristic of the People Power Movement in the Philippines.

Works Cited

Primary Sources

Johnson, Bryan. The Four Days of Courage: The Untold Story of the People Who Brought Marcos Down. New York: Free, 1987. Print.

Secondary Sources

Buss, Claude A. Cory Aquino and the People of the Philippines. Stanford: Stanford Alumni Association, 1987. Print.

Crisostomo, Isabelo T. Marcos the Revolutionary. Quezon City: J. Kriz Enterprises, 1973.

Goodno, James B. The Philippines: Land of Broken Promises. London: Zed, 1991. Print.

Haiman, Franklyn S. "Rhetoric of the Streets: Some Legal and Ethical Considerations." Readings in the Rhetoric of Social Protest. Browne, Stephen Howard, and Charles E. Morris III, eds. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2013.

Hill, Gerald N., Kathleen Thompson Hill. Aquino Assassination: The True Story and Analysis of the Assassination of Philippine Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. Sonoma, CA: Hilltop, 1983. Print.

Komisar, Lucy. Corazon Aquino: The Story of a Revolution. New York: George Brazillier, 1987. Print.

Milan, Stefania. "From Social Movements to Cloud Protesting: The Evolution of Collective Identity." Information, Communication & Society 18.8 (2015): 887-900. Web.

Schock, Kurt. Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements in Nondemocracies. Vol. 22. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 2005. Print. Social Movements, Protest, and Contention.

Thompson, Mark R. "Putting 'People Power' Back Together Again: Some Puzzles from the Philippines." Research on Democracy and Society 3 (1996): 397-415. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.