Marcos the revolutionary

Title

Creator

De Vega, Guillermo C.

Language

English

Source

The Republic (Issue No. 24) 1 September 1973

Year

1973

Subject

Book reviews

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Fulltext

BOOKS Schumacher’s ’ The Propaganda Movement’ John N. Schumacher. The Propaganda Movement: 1880*1895. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1973 302 PPThe Propaganda Movement, the period following the execution of the three priests, Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora, is the main thrust of Jesuit Father John N. Schumacher’s The Propaganda Movement: 18801895 (Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1973). To Father Schumacher, the period 1880-1895 was an interregnum of sort in the country’s historical progression toward a “nationalist ideology” based “on a consciousness of a national identity, of being one people.” This “nationalist ideology,” continues Schumacher, gave “birth to the Revo lution of 1896. For a revolution, he says, presupposes a people with a con sciousness of its own identity and uni ty as a nation. And this Filipino na tionalist movement made possible the emergence of Philippine society from Marcos the Revolutionary’ Isabelo T. Crisostomo. Marcos the Rev olutionary, Manila, J. Kriz Publishing Enterprises, 1973. 231 pp. This book is the first serious at tempt by a prominent Filipino writer to analyze with singular clarity and logic the phenomenal rise of President Ferdinand E. Marcos from politician to revolutionary. Rich in scholarship but deceptively simple in its style of exposition, this work of Professor Isa belo T. Crisostomo is remarkably instructive and enjoyable to read. It commends itself to readers who desire to acquire an understanding of the Marcos theory of revolution, as well as the background, rationale and pros pects of his historic decision. A great number of Filipinos, in cluding members of the intelligentsia, were taken by surprise when President Marcos, a product of the old system of politics in this country, turned against that system and decided to change the course of the nation’s his tory by waging a democratic revolu tion. Their astonishment stemmed from the fact that no President before him had had the genius to conceive such a comprehensive vision, and the coutage and fortitude to implement it. Furthermore, past experience in the history of this and other nations, in Asia and other parts of the globe, could yield no precedent similar or parallel to the action President Marcos had taken. Finally, they realized that the Marcos revolution, unlike other great revolutions in history, is peace ful, legal, and constitutional. Professor Crisostomo contends in Marcos the Revolutionary — inciden its “medieval tutelage” which, one way or another, had forged the Filipino unity through a “common bond of religion and even, to the extent it existed, a common language.” Father Schumacher’s observations are more sweeping than convincing. Obviously, his concept of nationalism is rather limited, parochial. True, any nationalist ideology is based “on a consciousness of a national identity, of being one people” but this con sciousness presupposes a direction or a dialectical praxis: a direction that should be viewed within a colonial context in its thrust toward separation or liberation from the mother colony. Even more questionable is Schuma cher’s assertion that Filipino unity was made possible by the bond of reli gion, that is, Roman Catholicism, which he manifests as the raison d’etre of the so-called “medieval tutelage.” The twist, to say the least, though seemingly heterodox, is already a belabored point among Jesuitical his torians. Filipino nationalism, to set the record straight, came to the fore in response to the abusive and exploit ative policies of the Spaniards both lay and religious. The religious charac ter, as it were, of the colonial reign was mostly incidental. Whether Catho licism existed or not, as long as there was colonial exploitation, Filipino na tionalism was bound to surface. And, even if, for the sake of argument, there was any unity at all that was effected by the Catholic Church, it was, at the very least, geographical, not ideological. Even then, this geo tally his second book on the President — that those who were surprised by the apparent suddenness of the President’s decision would not have been caught unaware if they had been perceptive enough to sense that actually revolu tion was a recurrent message in the President’s speeches and official pro nouncements. As early as 1965, when by an overwhelming majority he won the Republic’s presidency, he was al ready mentioning it, and in his First Inaugural Address delivered on December 30, 1965 he adumbrated the course of the revolution as one principally directed at the oligarchy — “the privileged few.” Scrutinizing the President’s publish ed speeches, interviews with journalists and a wide spectrum of other sources, Crisostomo observes that since Mr. Marcos occupied the presidency, he had nothing but contempt for the status quo. He wanted to build a new social system because the old order, totally controlled by the elite, was too sterile and decadent to admit changes that could relieve the misery of the masses. Yet, paradoxically enough, al though theoretically the most power ful man in the Republic, the President did not have sufficient powers to insti tute the reforms in the society awaited by the people. Congress was at best slow in considering the passage of revolutionary social legislation that would diffuse wealth and power since the elements comprising it were,by and large, oligarchs or their proud ex tensions. The judiciary, like Congress, was stuffed with a number of re presentatives of the oligarchy, and as a consequence the dispensation of graphic unity was meant for Spanish ecclesiastical and political rather than indigenous nationalistic purposes. The contention of “medieval tute lage” reaches comic proportions if we would take into consideration the fiery denunciations by both the pro pagandists and the revolutionists of friar abuses and atrocities which even tually culminated in the establishment of the Philippine Independent Church under Gregorio Aglipay, a Filipino priest. Certain scholars on Philippine Revolution agree that the Propaganda Movement, contrary to popular pre sumption, could not have positively or to a great extent, determined the Phil ippine revolution of 1896. The very failure, in fact, of the Propaganda Movement led to the Revolution. The middle class had nothing to do with it. For the Propaganda Movement and the Revolution were separate move ments espousing different ideals, diffe rent protagonists, different inclina tions. The Propaganda Movement was mainly confined to the elite, the ilustrado, whose outlook, narrow and confined to its self-serving “universal view,” clashed head-on with the Rev olution’s whose base, the masses, was representative of an altogether native temperament. Historian Teodoro A. Agoncillo in his The Revolt of the Masses (Quezon City: University of the Philippines, 1956) correctly assesses the character of the middle class vis-a-vis the revolu tion. The middle class, Agoncillo ar gues, looked “upon revolutionary pro justice was not beyond the commerce of the influential. The bureaucracy was bogged down in the mire of cor ruption and ineptitude, thus resulting in the loss of millions of public funds, and the sacrifice of the masses. Criminality and lawlessness were rampant not only because of the in equities engendered by the oligarchic control of the economy but also because of the prevailing distorted sense of values of the law-enforcers and the people themselves. To a President obsessed with national greatness and a passion to improve the plight of his people the situation was intolerable. Thus, as early as May 29, 1966, President Marcos declared: “You have elected me as your leader, but as your leader I find myself impotent to raise this cry [that public officials be beyond reproach] for all the people to hear. I have issued the directives, I have issued the orders. I commanded, and yet it does not go beyond the lower echelons of the hierarchy of government.” Imperative was, therefore, the need to change the system and recast the values of our people. But such an end could only be attained by radical action, a revolution. The President, observes the author, could sense that the mood of the people, as early as 1966, was portentous; the masses were rapidly developing a revolu tionary temper that could explode any time. Thus he appealed to the oligarchy to be more socially respon sive and responsible, to stop the osten tatious and brazen .display of their affluence and power, and to share, if possible, part of their privileges with the masses. But instead of heeding his advice the unscrupulous rich used their mass media in ridicule to destroy his credibility as they continued to mock the masses by extravagantly cedure with the nonchalance of static academicians, theoretically giving con sent to it but actually shunning its vio lent nature, for the heart of the mid dle class trembles with fear of the con sequences that stem reason repudiates in its love of order and sequence.” The middle class only joined the Revolution, to further quote Agoncil lo, at a time “when the masses had al ready shown that they could dethrone the niler and beat his army in the field with nothing but bolos, a few ancient guns, courage, bravery and unity . . . In the Malolos Congress,” continues Agoncillo, “the intellectuals wrangled over the question of the union of Church and State and it was only after two close bal’otings that the Church and State were declared independent and separate, and at that, the propo nents of separation won by only one vote. The Revolution, therefore, failed in its aims and ideal of establishing an economic democracy, and its failure, if one is candid and honest enough to admit it, was caused by the betrayal of the intellectuals.” Father Schumacher has failed to provide a solid ground upon which his thesis could convincingly and credibly stand. What is, however, meritorious in Schumacher’s The Propaganda Move ment: 1880-1895 is its rich archival documentations. His bibliographical essay on his sources, which are mostly primary, broadens one’s Philippine bibliographic horizon and definitely en riches Philippine Historiography. ANTONIO C. HILA flaunting their pelf and privilege. When the masses began to rise, as Marcos had warned, the oligarchy, much to theit dismay,-discovered he was with them — the people — leading them in their revolt against the system. As a critical study of the Marcos leadership, Crisostomo’s book fa miliarizes the reader with the back ground and motivations of a number of great revolutionary leaders in history, vividly capturing the mood and temper of the period covered by his narrative — the irresponsibility and unresponsiveness of the rich, the in adequacy of the powers of the Presi dent of the Republic, the rebellious ness of the young, the color and clangor of protest rallies and demon strations which were eventually infil trated and manipulated by Com munist ideologues. The author’s ac count of the so-called “Revolt at Congress,” the “Battle of Mendiola” and “Siege of Malacanang” prior to the launching of the Democratic Revolution on January 25, 1971 by President Marcos will doubtless enable the readers to re-live that chapter in our history which helped precipitate martial law. However, it is in his character ization of President Marcos where Professor Crisostomo excels himself. Drawing from the President’s own words ancl from those of his critics in the mass media, he succeeds in depict ing the President in his true light as the nation’s leader: a heroic figure who is always moved by feelings of humanity, who is firm but compas sionate, warm but resolute, who is above all a genuine idealist with a pragmatic view of the world around him, indeed a commanding yet humane personality. Dr. GUILLERMO C. DE VEGA 1 September 1973 THE REPUBLIC Pane 6

pages

6

Media