Many bodies were maimed and far too many lives were lost presumably because the martial state’s security forces implemented "maximum tolerance" with such efficiency.
Across the years, the authorities and their armed auxiliaries – in as well as out of uniform, with or without name tags that discombobulate their true identities – have regularly invoked "maximum tolerance" in warring against citizens expressing their deep disaffection with mostly feckless and iniquitous governance. The authorities preach and practice "maximum tolerance" most in handling public demonstrations during state visits by foreign dignitaries. Especially where the distinguished visitor can extend badly needed economic or military resources to help a beleaguered administration survive, "maximum tolerance" gets trumpeted even more and the authorities leave little doubt that it will be maximally observed.
All these years, there has been a gross misunderstanding of what "maximum tolerance" has really meant and who might be properly described as the practitioners of this probably inimical national policy. Contrary to the claims of the ruling authorities and what the general public might have been misled to believe, national administrations in this country have been largely unsympathetic and quite severe in handling critical public demonstrations. Beyond Marcos’ repressive rule, succeeding administrations from 1986 to current times also have had their shameful share of minimally tolerated peasant/farmer demonstrations, student/worker rallies and poor people’s marches. Summarily and often violently dealt with, these citizen actions were demonized by the authorities as being ideologically inspired, drug-crazed or violently anarchic.
The truth of the matter is that the citizenry itself has been historically the singular practitioner of maximum tolerance in national affairs. Filipinos have incredibly tolerated not only the ineptitude, corruption and insensibility of most of those who have been their national leaders and governors; they have also countenanced treason, plunder and outright rapacity by national administrations that willfully served alien rather than Filipino interests. They have accommodated public officials whose unrelenting pursuit of personal gains make serious public service in this country a costly joke, paid for and suffered by an exceedingly forbearing people.
Maximum tolerance is not a genuine virtue for a nation in perennial crisis. Faced by a long history of incompetent governance and disastrous leadership, it would be well for Filipinos now to be less patient and more demanding, to be quick to anger and quicker to concertedly act in confronting officials who presume to define the nation’s normally sordid realities.
A citizenry that has been outraged enough by its miserable history cannot be denied its alternative destiny. Filipinos have to learn that while tolerance may be a virtue in normal times, it may be a most heinous vice in extremely trying times.
Best to be uncompromisingly intolerant now of plundering authorities and inept officials. Best to drop maximum tolerance in regarding those who misrepresent themselves as heaven’s gift to the nation. Best to bear this in mind as the most impressive dregs of Philippine society now casually offer themselves – kapalmuks – as legitimate candidates in the May 2004 elections.