Reflections on martial rule: Thirty years after

It seems to me the bulk of our citizenry and even our leaders are missing the point. Never again! They say to martial law. Never again will Philippine democracy be hijacked by dictatorship or a strongman regime. Never again will the people "grovel under the yoke of tyranny." To stress the point, First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo announces to one and all that his spouse, President GMA no less, "will never" impose martial rule. Just so the message sank deeper, GMA told a delegation of the Unfair Trade Alliance at Malacañang: "Your President will not be the President to turn off the lights in the factories. Your President will fight for jobs and industries."

Whoa there!

There is in all this reverberating sound, fury and stupid commentary the presumption, even the conclusion that an authoritarian system of government is evil. That no matter how bad or deficient our democracy may be, let’s all stand vigil over it because a slide into martial or authoritarian rule will be the end of us all. Finito. This was also the impression I got while assisting the Martial Law Roundtable discussions as moderator held at De La Salle University Conservatory Saturday. This commemorated the 30th anniversary of the proclamation of martial law by President Ferdinand Marcos September 21, 1972.

All this "never again!" emotional stampede stuns this writer.

History is glossed over. The great social and political upheavals that shook humankind before and after the French Revolution of 1789 are conveniently forgotten. The famous and universally accepted Second Treatise of John Locke advocating resort to revolution by a people unable any longer to suffer government oppression and exploitation is given short shrift. It was largely John Locke’s populist exhortation, not to mention the Jacobins of the French Revolution, that ended feudalism in Europe. From then on, the word citoyen (citizen) was born and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights took root.

Listen. Not in all the verbiage I am hearing today is there any specific mention that our democracy has failed. Or failed dismally so far.

Well, it has failed, except that hardly anybody wants to admit is openly. In the Roundtable discussions at De La Salle University Saturday, Vice President Teofisto Guingona was a lone voice when he said Ferdinand Marcos could have succeeded in making the Philippines "great again" if he did a Lee Kuan Yew. Meaning Mr. Marcos could have transformed the Philippines from an impoverished to a prosperous nation if he installed a benevolent and caring dictatorship. The mention of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew by Mr. Guingona instantly elicited a knee-jerk reaction. Lee installed a dictatorship in Singapore, ruled with a ruthless iron hand. What is forgotten is that in less than 30 years, he transformed that city-state into a glittering, industrial citadel, a model for the world.

Well, no Lee Kuan Yew for the Philippines. Why? Because he ruled with relentless and disciplinary vigor. Because he shoved democracy down the drain. Because he exacted blood, tears and sweat from the citizenry to give them the good, decent, prosperous life they are enjoying today.

I think this is where I am hitting and locating the lodestone of our culture. I know I am going to get brickbats but let me say it just the same. Filipinos want to succeed the easy way. They want a shortcut to economic prosperity. They want the easy, breezy life. They love fiestas, goodtime, chibug and barkadahan. They glorify who? The celebrities first of all. That’s why Joseph Estrada rode a gilded chariot to Malacañang in a massive electoral landslide in 1998.

That’s why the electorate will elect Fernando Poe Jr., FPJ no less, to the presidency in 2004. And stopping him will be like stopping a cannonball in its trajectory once it’s fired. That’s why, despite all their poverty and misery, a recent survey reveals Filipinos remain relatively happy. They call that the Happiness Inday. If you feel okay about tomorrow, well and good Mañana, Bahala Na, Ayos na ang buto-buto. The inevitable reply to how’re you, how’s everything is "Okay lang." Nobody ever answers "Masama ang kalagayan ko." The eternal optimism is there what whatever the problem or problems, everything will be okay. The Filipino smile is proverbially optimistic. It’s the sweetest smile in the world.

Ferdinand Marcos knew this. And that’s why it was easy for him to declare martial law. Our democracy was still very wobbly, porous, walking on matchstick legs, its institutions terribly fragile. When he declared martial rule, it was a walk in the park. The streets did not erupt with protests.

Benigno Aquino Jr. knew this. That’s why he took on the loneliest, most God-forsaken, forlorn but bravest role. Defy the dictator. Defy the institutions of a misbegotten martial law regime. Prove to the people that courage and integrity could make a difference. Die fighting if need be.

Now let me tell you that Ninoy Aquino told me here and in Boston where I visited him thrice. He first said in 1971 that Philippine democracy was not working at all. He said that if he ever became president, he would declare martial law for that was the only way in our contemporary history that our society could be straightened out, that law and order would prevail. He said that crooks and criminals could never really be punished under the so-called "due process of law." They and their political protectors would buy and threaten witnesses who would then disappear. Judges could be bought. Therefore, said Ninoy, those crooks and criminals would have to be summarily executed "and be made to float down the Pasig." (In the vernacular: palutangin na lang natin sa Pasig).

Marcos saw a weak democracy as an excuse to plunder the country, rid it of his enemies, engage in massive human rights violations, perpetuate himself and his family in power. Ninoy saw a weak democracy as his stirring raison de’etre to engage in a life-long crusade to purge Philippine society of its many weaknesses and evils. Even if he would die in the process.

Here we see Marcos’ greed and political brutality against Ninoy’s nobility and integrity. Here we see two men, both endowed with tremendous intellect, both possessed, seek power to achieve their ends. Marcos used the power of Malacañang, riches, money to set up a ruthless, thieving, murderous dictatorship. Ninoy used isolation, the utter loneliness of his prison cell in Fort Bonifacio to reach not material power, but the power of the sovereign and indestructible spirit.

Marcos could not be deterred from setting up a garrison state using the military and the police as his arch protectors. If ultimate power was his, then his was the roller-coaster to ultimate glory. Ninoy could not be deterred from calling upon "the better angels of his nature" to guide him as he bore his torch through the darkness. "As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil."

Never had the Philippines witnessed two men strike out in opposite directions at the same time the nation was reaching a curb in its history. It was almost three decades after independence from the US, coincident with the end of the Second World War. The postwar era also saw the former colonized nations of Asia seek to shake off the cruel barnacles of Western imperialism. What were the pathways to freedom? To a better life? What political and economic models were convenient or useful to Asian nations that had never known what democracy was?

The Philippines chose democracy, the American or Western model of democracy because of 50 years of American colonial rule. Other Asian nations chose the authoritarian system because of their hierarchical familistic culture, the most successful of which today is the South Korean model started by Park Chung Hee, the Singapore model of Lee Kuan Yew. Lee early on saw the weakness of the democratic model for the Philippines, as did Ninoy Aquino even earlier. The heroes of the Philippine revolution against Spain didn’t know what democracy was. There were of course figments in the imagination of Andres Bonifacio who read by lamplight what the Century of the Enlightenment was in France. He adored Voltaire.

I must insist that the political controversy raging in the Philippines today is an offshoot of the Marcos-Aquino political duel. And if we must look deeper into history, an offshoot of Asia’s political legacy from the West. And its own legacy.

Our porous, archipelagic, tribal culture made Filipinos easy pickings for Castille’s cacique ethos and the many religious, joyfully evocative trappings of ritual Christianity. Our easy-going, tropical, pleasure-seeking culture was just right for the free-wheeling, Yankee hail-fellow-well-met and Hollywood entertainment splash that is so prevalent in our society today. Except that hard times have come upon us. Hard, arduous, backbreaking times that make us Filipinos realize for the first time we must change or perish. Change for the better of course. But how? Many Asian nations have faced that challenge – and succeeded.

But that took blood, tears and sweat. Can we?