By Philip M. Lustre Jr.
(N. B. I wrote this article exactly three years ago mainly to present a perspective on the aftermath of the historic 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution. Actually, attempts to revise our history is not new. It has been a secret cottage industry in our country. Please read.)
THE transition to constitutional democracy from dictatorship, which Ferdinand Marcos euphemistically called “constitutional authoritarianism,” did not happen smoothly.
The reformist faction in the Armed Forces of the Philippines had developed into a bloc that put obstacles for a smooth transition.
Because of its role in the historic and bloodless uprising that dismantled the Marcos dictatorship, the reformist bloc, or the Reform the Armed Forces, or RAM, had emerged to exercise veto power in the new Cory Aquino – Doy Laurel power bloc.
It became a bloc within a bloc in the power structure.
Amid the public euphoria that followed the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution, which has become a template for nonviolent, bloodless uprisings to topple dictatorships, reformist military leaders became celebrities.
Within the power structure, reformist leaders provided opinions to form part of the inputs in decision-making.
The reformist bloc, once a secret group of soldiers engaged in surreptitious coup plots, emerged powerful. Its offices at the back of the Ministry of National Defense building in Camp Aguinaldo became the seat and symbol of its power and influence.
But the reformist bloc had developed what could be described a “monster attitude," believing that since it was instrumental in putting Mrs. Aquino to power, it had the “right” to take it back.
In the ensuing incessant squabbling and power struggle, Cory Aquino had to argue that it was the people, who put her in power, not the reformist bloc.
She had to clarify countless times that her power - or mandate - did not come from the results of the inconclusive Feb. 7 “snap” presidential elections or the reformist-led but ill-fated anti-Marcos, RAM-led coup d’etat, which did not push through, but from the nonviolent, people-backed military uprising (not the reformist bloc’s alone), or the EDSA People Power Revolution.
The people shouted her name, not just Juan Ponce Enrile's and Fidel Ramos’s. They did not object when she took her oath of office as president towards the end of the fateful four-day EDSA Revolution.
Even Enrile and Ramos admitted that Cory Aquino was the legitimate winner in the “snap” polls. It was the reason their faction committed to support her presidency.
Even Enrile admitted that before he and Ramos attended Cory Aquino’s oathtaking at Club Filipino, he had to refuse the last minute but desperate efforts by Marcos to strike a deal to create a military-backed junta.
Instead he worked to facilitate instead Cory Aquino’s ascendancy to power. “She is the legitimate president,” he said.
In short, Cory Aquino’s assumption to power was not a product of negotiations by self proclaimed power brokers. Neither did she become president because something fluke happened.
She had to assert every now and then that it was a mandate given her by the sovereign people in a bloodless military uprising which, until now, continues to fascinate not just a few nations, but the whole world as well.
It has been a cause for extreme annoyance that certain quarters have been coming out lately with revisions of the EDSA Revolution.
Although their exact motives remain unclear, they have been trying to inject details that distort the EDSA Revolution, as if it did not exactly mean to empower Cory Aquino.
Why they keep on spewing those unverifiable details late in the day, when major political players are either dead or senile, is a matter of conjecture.
By the way, the sources of those loose talks remain hidden from the public view.
One of the recent revisions – or outright distortion – came from a newspaper columnist, who alleged that it was agreed in a meeting between the Cory and her group and Enrile and Ramos on day three of the EDSA Revolution that she would be president for a maximum of two years, after which she would give way to a new government and constitution.
As told by some revisionists, Cory Aquino, as transition president for two years, would just oversee the dismantling of the dictatorial structures, after which she would give way to a restored democracy to be headed by a new president.
As if to give some importance to a not-so-important figure, the revisionists peddled the line that everything changed when Cory Aquino listened to Peping Cojuangco.
It was a subtle way to promote the discredited line that Cory was naive to listen to brother Peping, who was never reputed to possess political brilliance.
Because Cory listened to Peping, she stayed in power for the next six years, so the thinking goes. This is an outright lie.
As a journalist, I covered the political beat for quite a while. But I did not hear that canard that she would be a transition president for two years.
Had those political players reached an agreement for a transition president with a fixed two-year term limit, I would assume they would put that agreement into writing with all the parties affixing their signatures to the veracity and authenticity of that accord.
But after all those years, I have yet to see any written pact – fake or genuine. The fact that it has come out too late in the day gives the impression that it was more an afterthought, or a wish, but never a fact, or a historical reality.
Had the political players reached that accord, I would candidly say that the reformist bloc would not lead or take active part in the series of bloody military coups that followed the EDSA Revolution.
Instead, their leaders would just wait for the alleged two-year transition period to end and cast its luck in the next elections.
I do not see any reason for the military reformers to alter unnecessarily the political equation and gamble away the lives of their leaders, members, and valuable resources.
Moreover, I did not hear Enrile or any of those reformers invoking this two-year transition presidency during or even after Cory Aquino’s six-year tenure of office. Enrile, noted for his ferocity in public debates, would surely invoke the two-year transition.
But he never did it for the simple reason that it never existed at all. The reformist bloc, in a display of its newfound power, opted to launch a series of debilitating coups, plunging the country into instability.
Historical revisionism is a bane that affects not just third world countries like ours but even established democracies. Until now, Germany has its band of historical revisionists, who mock historical realities and instead present historical distortions or misinterpretations as alternatives.
The Holocaust, which killed nearly six million Jews, for instance, is a case in point. For those revisionists, the Holocaust did not happen at all.
Adolf Hitler was not a rabid anti-Semitic dictator, but a saint, according to those revisionists. They have been aptly rejected. Even Germans take them as crackpots.
How shall we treat those revisionists? It’s simple. All we have to do is to ignore them completely and treat them as if they do not exist. Let them grow tired. Let them dissipate their resources.
When ignored, they would just leave us alone. No buts, ifs, and whys... or even why nots...
No comments:
Post a Comment