From rebellion to revolution

Title

Language

English

Source

The Republic Volume I (Issue No.22) 1-31 December 1976

Subject

Marcos, Ferdinand E. -- 1917-1989 -- Speeches, addresses, etc.

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

[Excerpted from President Marcos’ Notes on the New Society Part II. To be continued]

Fulltext

THE REPUBLIC 14 1-31 December 1976 Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos □ From rebellion to revolution THE BEST of societies, if there is anything to agree on, has its share of shortcomings. More so, indeed, in the case of a society that had just been born. About the gloomiest observation made of peoples in developing societies is that they are caught between two worlds: one that is dead and another too impo tent to be born. I consider it remarkable, therefore, that the New Society was born at all. If for this reason alone, the New Society, like any society, is not above criticism. As a matter of fact, a critique of that society may even be ionger than a straightforward description of it. And as the main architect of the New Society, I should think that I know its shortcomings as much, if not more, than anyone. Socially speaking, we are confronted with cer tain problems in the democratization of wealth through agrarian reform. While it is admitted even by our bitterest critics that government has achieved more in three years than any government in thirty, still there are some demands for zero retention, which means the dispossession of all landlords. On the other hand, I have allowed retention up to seven hectares, for the majority of these landlords are re tired military men and government civil servants not a few of whom are former teachers. Certainly, in my view, they cannot by any stretch of the imagination be counted among the caciques of old. It is true, however, that there are landlords who resist in various ways, to the extent even of harassing tenants, sometimes with the assistance of misguided military officials. I am not unaware of this as I am not unaware of other abuses of official authority. The abuse of power is one area I am not in sensitive about. There has been ill-treatment of de tainees, extortion, and other misbehavior on the part of the military and the police. While these are isolated cases, they nonetheless are offensive to civilized mankind. The factual establishment of guilt is sometimes difficult, but I am determined that these should stop, as arrogance, insensibility, and Inaccessibility of high-ranking officials must stop. The bureaucracy has its share of miscreants too. They perpetuate bureaucratic delay and venality. It will be recalled that last year, I carried out a gen eral cleansing of the bureaucracy, though perhaps in too summary a manner. Consequently, I have had to reinstate several of those dismissed. As for the re tirees who remain in office to this moment, I can only plead some difficulty in finding their replace ments. To my mind, in any case, the age of an offi cial should not be a disqualification, unless, of course, deterioration is evident In any case, the important lesson of the “purge” is that human be ings, even if they are government officials, cannot be computerized. The errors of the “purge list” itself revealed certain propensities which endanger our sense of society. Power, in this case, has been used by seve ral to settle old political or personal scores, as there have been cases of false reports and mistaken ap prehensions because duly constituted authorities have been influenced—both by public servants and private citizens-into unwittingly prosecuting their personal vendettas. I continue to observe this trend, gathering evidence quietly, for as in all other mat ters, I must be wary about prevarications. Resurgence of Oligarchy I AM APPALLED by the resurgence of oligarchic behavior not only in the public but also in the private sector. Conspicuous consumption continues. The well-off have yet to learn the necessity and vir tue of restraint; ostentation dramatizes a lack of consideration for the sensitivities of the poor. I can not command the privileged—for to be in govern ment now and to be rich by virtue of inheritance, industry, or luck are both privileges—to abandon their tastes, but I do urge them to restrain their “styles.” As any true artist will tell them, elegance of style is simplicity and restraint Moreover, the aping of foreign modes of living is reflective of a colonial mentality. I understand that human nature can hardly be changed, although social structures can be drastically changed. But the ethics of the New Society are not alien to us Filipinos: it has been with every popular aspiration in the past for a better life in a better so ciety. In sum, the New Society ethics is rooted in our historical and cultural heritage. It is only that the old society repudiated the ethics, precisely be cause its measure was. economic or social advance ment by any means. I will say, therefore, that now the perversity is not in the society but in the individual who be lieves that the old way is still the most effective way of achieving his personal goals. That individual is to be found both inside government and outside government, and it is their interaction which causes distortions in our new society. Stopping this interaction through vigilance in the bureaucratic authority is one part of the job: that is mine. The other half is a citizen task; he must not succumb to the bureaucrat; he must exer cise his right of vigilance through the proper chan nels, through his barangay, and through every avenue offered by the government, including the Office of the President Graft and corruption, as I have emphasized in my previous books, is a conspiracy of at least two persons, often between an offi cial and a citizen. Having cited all these and other shortcomings, I make an opening for the few remaining detractors of the New Society. The critics, I must say here and now, are always welcome, for they are presumed to have the welfare of the society in mind. But detract ors have a sinister purpose: to discredit-and do away with the society. To them, the shortcomings I have cited and the “ills” that they themselves cite, “prove” that the New Society is a failure. I need only remind them that we have had their version of democracy and civil liberties for 27 years; it had des troyed an entire society, and yet it took that long— 27 years-before it was given up as a destructive experiment Now, on the other hand, we have had only four years of the New Society with its acknow ledged achievements for the Filipino people, but be cause detractors are dissatisfied, .they would disman tle it as dictated by the old political habit Worse still, they would have us turn back the clock and return to the old society. On Criticisms THAT THE New Society is oppressive is neither an accurate observation nor a valid criticism. But that its crisis government is authoritarian, that is true; however, I do not accept it as a criticism that I am obliged to respond to. The terms author itarian and martial law upset some people, most of whom have no stake in the country. As for some of my countrymen whose disapproval is well-known, it is not altogether clear whether they are against the situation as it is or are just simply against me. I am aware of such remarks as, ‘I like Martial Law with out Marcos,’ which is just as capricious as the re mark—‘I like Marcos without Martial Law.’ There is, quite frankly, nothing that can be done about it, as far as my adversaries are con cerned, except to get rid of me. However, if they are willing to have a principled discussion about it, then certain things can be done. Thus, the criticism of the New Society has two aspects: personal, which relates to me, and objective, which relates to the situation. I am, of course, an old veteran in personal criticism. Indeed, if many of my bitterest critics had the same attacks levelled on them, public or private, they might have died of apoplexy or called out'the troops for a bloodbath. In my long career as a poli tician in the old society, I have dined with ardent civil libertarians who were crushed by a snub or would call in the police to defend an error in gram mar. The most reverend repeaters of Lord Acton’s— ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’—would not give their clerks the discretion to requisition coupon bonds. This shows, if anything, a The ethics of the New Society are not alien to us Filipinos. misapprehension of power and a lack of appreciation for coupon bonds. But I suppose I am obliged, at this point, to explain myself in relation to the power I exercise. It will be noted at once that I do not speak of the power I possess, but of the power I exercise. These are not one and the same thing. If, indeed, power were a matter of possession by me, it follows that I could transfer it at will, and I know I cannot Thus, power is exercised by virtue of the position that I fill. Should I be incapacitated, the position will be vacant, and I can no more dictate who shall be in it than I can command the tides to recede. What happens then? By testament, I have decreed that a committee will take over the reins of government and submit themselves to a referendum election. How do I know that I will be obeyed? Is my testament binding on others? The obvious answer is that the people know. My testament cannot pre vent the ambitious from trying to stage a coup, or determined groups from making a revolution, but that, in either case, will depend on the temper of the people. My detractors and adversaries speak as if I had stolen a march on the Filipino people. They can only say that because they are not occupying my office. Nor have they ever made a truly crucial political decision, but that, of course, is entirely my affair. Consider, however, what my decision meant: I have altered the course of the nation, and in doing so, I placed my life and honor and my fa mily’s life, honor, and future at the mercy of his tory and the judgment of the people. Is that a price for a few more years in the Presidency? I am afraid that my adversaries cannot judge me on the basis of the so-called ‘power drive.’ There are more things in the exercise of power than are dreamt of in their philosophy. It is an unfortunate occasion in history when a free people would have to need ‘a great man’-that is, if they were free. As Lincoln once said, the mission of a democracy is to prevent the rise of eagles; true, quite true. But Philippine democracy in the old society was, if not run by eagles, populated by vultures. In this instance, an eagle, even a hawk, was preferable. This was the note I emphasized in a speech before constitutionalists: Tiopk ^historic decision not‘only to preserve the Republic but to build a society, a political society, in which a Marcos would neither be necessary nor desirable. Some have called my leadership Cromwellian, which is not alto gether unacceptable, and others predict a Cromwellian fate, to which neither they nor I have much of a say. I know, however, that protestations of good faith is not enough. I would not mind this so much if those who deny my protestations would also inhi bit theirs. But political instincts die hard. Coming back to power, the criticism narrows down to its sharing. But since as I have said, I pos sess not the power to distribute, what I have done is to spread the work, the duties, and the respon sibilities, a rather ordinary act which is misunder stood as a ‘grand alliance.’ However, in fairness to this criticism, I will note the assertion that ‘the ruling elite now possesses greater power than ever before,’ compared to my statement that ‘among some of the poor, there is still the nagging fear that they have again been left behind, and that we have liquidated an oligarchy to set up a new oligarchy.’ My actual context, however, was in reference to the throw-backs of the old society who either had not changed their ways or were trying to forge their own alliances in power-centers below the Presidency. That this ‘ruling elite has greater power’ is, of course, a wrong observation. (Excerpted from President Marcos’ Notes on the New Society Part II. To be continued)

pages

14

Media