Libby Willis
Dr. Brown
English 306
April 26, 2016
The People
Power Movement of 1986
Introduction
A
rather surprising wave of “unarmed insurrections” occurred throughout small,
underdeveloped countries in the late 1900s (Schock xvi). These countries were teeming
with oppressed, angry citizens whose call for democracy came in many different
forms of protest. Although peaceful protestation was not a new concept, these
countries used people power with renewed vigor, deliberately following in the
footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
Nonviolent protest
has been debated in the past in regards to its efficacy and usefulness. Many
have argued that people power is often idealized and used without evidence of
success (Schock 171). People power has also been historically used in
democratic settings, where the risks to protestors are minimal when compared
with dictatorships. Protesting without the means to defend oneself is dangerous
for those whose governments’ are less predictable, less accountable towards
their citizens. But the People Power Movement of 1986 is an example that
disputes these claims: it was held in the non-democratic, authoritarian-ruled
country of the Philippines. What began as a small group of radicalized
Filipinos grew into a full-blown revolution using solely speech and body
rhetoric to appeal to their government. The heart and soul of this protest came
from the Catholic Church, an institutional anchor in Filipino culture for
centuries. Poverty, widening stratification of social class, and deliberate
infringements upon human rights all spurred millions of average citizens to
stand up against their government. These protestors relied heavily on different
types of persuasion, appealing to the shared Catholic Filipino identity of
their opposition. While the entire protest was not completely blood free, the
protestors made a conscious effort to curtail any violence that could be
initiated, an important aspect to this specific protest.
The Catholic Church is not an institution that
is historically known to work with democracy well, which is why their
involvement makes this protest unique. Cory Aquino, the leader of the
revolution, relies heavily on her faith and the Catholic Church for support in
terms of followers and resources. It can be argued that without the aid given
by the Church, Cory and her movement would never have succeeded in overthrowing
a dictator as powerful as Marcos, because it was ultimately the shared identity
of Catholicism that brought the protestors together in such an unstoppable
manner.
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 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. Catholicism was deeply intertwined with the colonial
government, often being used as a tool for oppression in enslaving natives and
seizing land and farms (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,” priests of
Filipino descent, began to increase in numbers (Goodno 27). The rise in
nativist priests is noteworthy; throughout the majority of Filipino history,
Catholic Priests in the Philippines were unequivocally Spanish. The fact that
the native people were not allowed to take an integral role in their own
religion (which was, admittedly, forced upon them) until very late in history demonstrates
just how oppressed Filipinos were by the Spaniards. It was at this time that
the cohesive nation of the Philippines was beginning 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. While it was
stated that 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,” this type of misleading rhetoric was often
seen during colonial rule (Goodno 32). Perhaps a more accurate description
would be that while it was celebrated when Spanish rule was overthrown, this
did not mean freedom for the Filipinos. The
power merely shifted to a different country, the United States, delaying
democracy for the Philippines until after World War II concluded. 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, ultimately becoming archrivals in the governmental
sphere. Marcos, the future President-turned-Dictator of the Philippines, would
turn out to be the reason for the People Power protest in 1986, largely due to
his lust for unmitigated power. Aquino politically challenged Marcos, eventually
coming to represent the Filipino people and taking on the role of the martyr
for their cause.
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 was careful 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, as 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 (G. Hill and K. 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” (G.
Hill and K. 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 (G. Hill and K. 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 first turning
point occurred in 1971, when a political rally for the Liberal Party, “the
party running in opposition to Marcos’ Nationalistas” was bombed by an unknown
source (G. Hill and K. 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 political rival), 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. According to the Filipino
Constitution, a President is not to serve more than two terms in a lifetime. Conveniently,
the enactment of martial law allowed Marcos to remain in power indefinitely,
despite being at the end of his second term. 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 traditionally
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 (G. Hill and K. Hill 17). “Hoping to come home
to attempt a peaceful reconciliation and improvement of life,” Ninoy flew back
to Manila (G. Hill and K. Hill 17). Within “50 seconds” of Ninoy rising from
his seat and exiting the plane, he was assassinated (G. Hill and K. 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 (Davis 156).
Rhetorical Context
One
thing that Marcos did not prepare for was the sheer amount of people that the
protest amassed. The People Power Movement of the Philippines began in 1983 and
culminated in a four-day series of civil disobedient protests in February of
1986. 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 fundamentally orchestrated
by the leadership of the Church.
People
power is defined as being a protest that is nonviolent in nature. 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. The term ‘people power’ was often used during the years
of the protest, especially during the last four days in 1986. This is when the
majority of people came out to support the overthrow of Marcos. 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 protest 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 resolutely nonviolent,
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 Marcos-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.
Movement Artifact
The
heart of the unity within the People Power Movement is Cory Aquino, widow to
the beloved, and ultimately assassinated, Senator Ninoy Aquino. When Cory was
essentially begged to run for president against incumbent President Ferdinand
Marcos, Filipinos everywhere put their faith and loyalty in someone who was
only well known because of her murdered husband (Mercado 54). Her campaign for
presidency was fraught with attempted sabotage on the part of the Marcos
government, especially on the days following the election when suspected voter
fraud called into question the legitimacy of a self-reported Marcos’ win
(Komisar 100). With this information, tensions began to rise; the effect was
augmented by the defection of two high-level military executives within the
Marcos government. They intended to expose the voting fraud that the ruling
administration orchestrated to keep Marcos in power, risking their lives in the
process (Mercado 103). Cory and her mentor Cardinal Sin began to urge their
supporters to aid Minister Enrile and General Ramos by contributing food,
supplies, and even just a supportive presence to the two men. The effect was
beyond what both Cory and Cardinal Sin had imagined, their collective voice
drawing millions of people to one of the largest streets in the Philippines’
capital of Manila; this was the essence of people power.
Cory
Aquino served as a symbol to rally behind, uniting the opposition against
Marcos and his government cronies. Cory was chosen and ultimately followed by
the people thanks to her image being irrevocably intertwined with the Catholic
Church. Almost everything Cory said, did, or planned to do revolved around her
faith during the highly publicized election. Although Cory was not consciously
chosen to be the political symbol for
the People Power Movement, her candidacy is nonetheless indicative of how deep
faith runs within the Filipino community. It is interesting that the Church
initially supported Marcos during his first term in the 1960s, both calling for
social and economic reform that would aid poor agriculture workers. Marcos’
failure in tending to the needs of the lower class and his increasingly
repressive style of leadership led the Church to be the foremost institution to
turn its back on the Marcos government. Indeed, Cory’s sponsorship by the
Church and her ultimate success “demonstrated the power and influence of the
churches as institutions in Philippine society” (Youngblood, Marcos Against 7-8). Cory as a symbol
came to exude ethos, pathos, and logos to her supporters, largely due to the
unfailing faith shared by a great majority of Filipinos.
The
devout commitment to Catholicism that Cory was instilled with since childhood
was a source of common ground that she could share with many of her supporters.
At first glance, Cory does not exhibit ethos strictly as a politician. She was
inexperienced, having never held a position in government herself. However,
Cory was married to one of the most beloved senators of that time, Ninoy; this
did wonders for her image as a green politician. Even more so, she was a
“genuinely reluctant candidate” in terms of running for president, which was a
breath of fresh air for the Filipinos who were sick of a leader that was power
hungry in the most unabashed way (Buss 28). It was clear to her supporters that
absolute control was not her goal in attaining the presidency, and her image of
“integrity, her strength of character, and her charisma” helped to shape her
public persona as the metaphorical saintly angel compared with Marcos’ evil
devil (Buss 28). This dichotomy between the two candidates may seem hyperbolic,
but in the eyes of the Filipino community, Cory “is herself a religious symbol
who engenders respect and sympathy for her courage in standing up to the Marcos
regime” (Youngblood, “Corazon Aquino ‘Miracle’” 1240). Her religious identity
helped her to gain the confidence and support of her fellow countryman whose
trust in her was based partially on her religion alone.
Just
having the support of the Catholic Church, an institution respected and
oftentimes even revered for its outstanding morality, was enough for many
Filipinos to support Cory’s candidacy. This was enhanced by the fact that she
frequently referred to God and her religion publicly during speeches. When
speaking about her husband’s incarceration and eventual assassination, Cory
stated: “I was able to bear all the Lord’s heavy trials, [therefore] I will be
able to face the challenges of our nation’s presidency” (Mercado 55). By
implying that God was satisfied with her past reactions to His decisions, Cory
is able to prove to other Filipinos that she has a relationship with God that
has endured many hardships and yet continued to thrive. She is also implying
here that God plays an integral role in her life, demonstrating to her
supporters that as hard as the presidency will be, it is nothing compared to the
past challenges God has given her. Invoking her religion, demonstrating that
she has been and always will be devoutly faithful, resonates with the Filipino
public. Essentially, her faith and the support she receives from its leaders
during her campaign acts as the foundation for the trust that she builds with
her supporters. The bribes and voter fraud that Marcos pursued in the name of
reelection meant, arguably, nothing when compared with the tremendous power of
common religious ground shared between Cory and the rest of the Filipino
voters.
A
key fact that worked in Cory’s favor was her education. Although she did not
have any political experience, she was educated at some of the most prestigious
schools offered. While her education alone offers some credibility to her
presidency, the fact that her education was faith based was that much more
compelling to her audience. People knew that Cory had pursued high school and
college in the United States, thanks to her aristocratic background, and that
these schools were “good convent schools” (Mercado 55). People speculated that
“[God] himself [had] shaped her and given her this fine education because she
[was] to be a leader of her people” (Mercado 55). Her education came as a result of her divine
destiny, according to her followers, further entrenching their faith in her and
in God.
Concurrently,
and almost paradoxically, Cory exuded pathos as the widow of an assassinated
Senator. While she seemed strong in her determination to use her relationship
with God to win the presidency, she was also pitied for losing a husband that
everyone in the Philippines knew and loved. Cory often alluded to her husband
in speeches, knowing that his name would galvanize her supporters. At one rally
she commented, “my courage and strength will come from Ninoy and from all of
you” (Mercado 55). By invoking her husband, she is reminding them that not only
did she lose her husband to Marcos, but that all Filipinos collectively lost
him as a nation too. Ninoy was Cory’s husband and a Filipino hero, so the
tragedy and the pain that accompanied his death served as a way for Cory and
her supporters to connect with one another on an emotional level.
Ninoy’s death
served as a reminder of Marcos’ blatant disregard for the Filipinos’ faith and
their wants/needs as a nation. In contrast, Cory made sure that all Filipinos
knew that they were being heard: “The Filipino asked me for so little: freedom,
dignity […] I have seen with my eyes what Ninoy saw with faith: that the
Filipino is worth dying for” (Mercado 73). With this one statement, Cory is
solidifying her persona as the political counterpart to Marcos. She is a
politician that is in favor of the nation’s interests and not just in it for
the power and prestige. Simultaneously, she is legitimizing the requests of the
Filipinos, signaling to them that their demands are not outrageous and can be
heard, appealing to them on an emotional level. By showing her true
appreciation for the support that she received from all Filipinos, Cory successfully
established a relationship with her followers that was symbiotic in nature.
Those in the Catholic Church who supported Cory echoed this emotional
sentiment; one first hand witness observed, “the nuns had told [Cory] they were
ready to die to defend her” (Komisar 115). This complete devotion that not only
the Church but also all Filipinos exhibited towards Cory served to solidify her
identity as a divine symbol for freedom from the oppressive.
If logic is
defined by the religious identity of Filipinos, then logic in this case would
be appealing to and relying on God on a spiritual level. Using her religious
background, Cory did just that privately and also publicly. Cory’s entire
campaign was centered on God’s will for her to run, God’s will for a woman to
be president, and God’s will for her to win the election. When discussing the
voting fraud enacted by Marcos, Cory states “there comes a point when God’s
power has to intervene […] we cannot win this without God’s help” (Mercado 56).
Cory’s appeal to God must resonate with her supporters who also feel that
ultimately, the success of their protest is in the hands of a higher power. If
the purpose of using Cory as a symbol is to unify those who were simultaneously
against Marcos and self-identified as Catholic, her invocation of and reliance
on God in the name of freedom from oppression would be the best way to
logically persuade her target audience.
Although
Cory was not purposefully chosen to lead and spur on the People Power Movement,
her presence and image as a devout Catholic, whose first goal was always to
provide for her country, ended up being the right amount of driving force
needed to get many Filipinos involved. With the Catholic Church’s participation
and unending support, Cory used her identity as a Catholic to connect with
voters on their most basic level. Her innate religious morality, the loss of
her husband and the people’s senator, and her unceasing faith in God allowed
her to overcome the dirty tactics used by Marcos to eventually win the
presidency. Celebration in the streets of Manila erupted after it was announced
that Marcos had fled the country to save his life. Arguably, the most
interesting part of the entire ordeal actually occurred after Cory assumed the
position of President, when the nation discovered that the problems left behind
by Marcos ran deeper than anyone could have imagined.
Conclusion
When critics
analyze the People Power Movement of the Philippines, they often exclaim with
great joy and pride that the protest was a success, that the people won, that
the dictator was overthrown, and that the truth ultimately trumped all. This is
all absolutely true if the protest’s effectiveness is looked at from one limited
point of view. If the protest is viewed as a singular event, with the sole goal
being to overthrow the dictator, then yes the protest is undoubtedly a success.
But it can also be argued that if another goal of the protest was to establish
a democracy where critical problems of the economic and social variety are evaluated
and solved, then this protest is in fact not successful. As early as eight
months after the revolution concluded in 1986, “disillusionment [was] already
setting in” amongst farmers and poor agricultural workers (Goodno 117). Little
was being done to help the very people who had an instrumental role in putting
Cory in office. The naïve Aquino government found it challenging to please
everyone, with the Communists, Marcos sympathizers, and even her own supporters
turning against her. While Cory’s honest reputation remained intact throughout
her presidency, her administration was perceived to be just as corrupt as
Marcos’ (Goodno 125). Economic instability and lack of social reform caused the
Aquino government to fall out of favor fairly quickly after Marcos was
overthrown.
The People Power
Movement of 1986 is remembered as a triumph for nonviolent protest. While this
is technically true, it is not exactly honest to say that democracy was
miraculously implemented overnight or that Filipinos saw an improvement in
their daily life. Many forget that actual, permanent change is hard work,
requiring a great deal of time and effort over several years to complete; the
People Power Movement is no exception to this rule. Even the Catholic Church,
arguably the most important backer of the entire protest, ended up criticizing
the Aquino administration for their lack of effort in enacting change. In terms
of using nonviolent, people power type protest as a means to achieve a
superficial goal like overthrowing a dictator, the People Power Movement can be
used as a prime example. But if the movement is analyzed deeper, it did not, in
the end, achieve much for the people that were its primary source of power. Perhaps
it would be more honest to qualify its success: yes, People Power was used to initiate change. At this, it was very successful.
But the People Power Movement did not complete
change. This distinction, often forgotten, is crucial if future leaders are
planning on learning from this movement.
Works Cited
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. Print.
Davis,
Leonard. Revolutionary Struggle in the Philippines. New York: St.
Martin's, 1989. Print.
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. & Hill, Kathleen T. Aquino Assassination: The True Story and
Analysis of the Assassination of Philippine Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr.
Sonoma, CA: Hilltop, 1983. Print.
Johnson,
Bryan. The Four Days of Courage: The Untold Story of the People Who Brought
Marcos Down. New York: Free, 1987. Print.
Komisar,
Lucy. Corazon Aquino: The Story of a Revolution. New York: George
Brazillier, 1987. Print.
Mercado,
Monina A., and Francisco S. Tatad. People Power: The Philippine Revolution
of 1986: An Eyewitness History. Manila, Philippines: James B. Reuter, S.J.,
Foundation, 1986. 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.
Youngblood,
Robert L. Marcos Against the Church: Economic Development and Political
Repression in the Philippines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1990. Print.
Youngblood,
Robert L. "The Corazon Aquino "Miracle" and the Philippine
Churches." Asian Survey 27.12 (1987): 1240-255. University of
California Press. Web. 2 Apr. 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment