EDSA is almost a blur.

Yes, the surviving players are going through the motions of reenacting the milestone events of those four days in 1986.

Yes, the calls for unity are there along with the strains of  ‘Magkaisa’  filled the airwaves.

But one wonders ruefully if indeed the spirit of EDSA be being revalued and given more meaning as Filipinos prepare for what should be watershed automated elections.

Or do the unmitigated political bickering and erosion of democratic institutions serve to further devalue EDSA’s lessons.

It is most telling that the regime now in power is being pilloried as having exceeded the record of the dictatorship in human rights abuses and corruption in half the time it took Ferdinand Edralin Marcos.

One only needs to canvass the sentiment of the man on the street.

Yes the Arroyo administration touts economic progress as its most visible accomplishment.

But the reality is the economy would have long gone under without the sustained blood and sweat earnings of Filipino contract workers abroad.

Yes, Filipinos must recapture the spirits of selfless heroism, the power to turn back menacing tanks and the return of authoritarian rule through prayer.

But this can happen only if we find leaders ready to forswear their narrow material interests, and shed  their lap dog loyalty to political patrons who gave them political favors.

Only leaders such as these can breathe new life, new meaning to people power.

This is not an empty admonition.

In some dark alley there is an emerging scenario that the coming leadership change in the military leadership could portend could be the opening moves of a draconian plot drawn up by men close, very close to a top ranking political power holder.

The democratic space we cherish so dearly must be preserved and continually enriched.

1. Raise money to fund an expensive election;
2. Fashion the LP into a credible electoral machine;
3. Craft a political platform that is “democratic, relevant, effective and one that would unify, rather than divide, Filipinos”;
4. Keep the support of the Catholic hierarchy; and
5. Make the campaign a learning opportunity for Noynoy.

Just like the Inquirer, many in FV are observed to be reading too little of the Noynoy/Mar (Roxas) tandem and the Liberal Party platform where the substance of their political philosophy inheres for now.

I have had the chance to expound again on this aspect of the current political debate highlighting the political substance of Noynoy with this post of mine at mlq3’s website:

One should note for example the stated belief in the LP platform in “social market economy,” the economic system that pays obeisance to the market only nominally and this affirmation: “Market should be our servant and not our master.”

The LP platform likewise provides clear intimation in terms of going the way of industrial democracy, a “dead horse” practically in American industrial relations nowadays.

Both Mar Roxas, the LP President, and Noynoy Aquino, the LP Executive VP until his announcement to be likewise the party’s standard bearer, have (presumably) signed on their party platform; it bears their approval.

Now, Nonoy’s acrid assessment of the malaise of our society is rather unreserved, almost uncouth: “matindi ang kabulukang bumabalot sa ating lipunan.” This painful frustration that Noynoy couldn’t hide is matched only by his passion for social justice as reflected in quality legislative measures he has initiated. One example is Senate Bill No. 1370 that would grant annual productivity incentive to workers in the private sector at 10% of the company’s net profits before taxes.

In the explanatory notes for Senate Bill 2036 that Noynoy has also authored (the measure seeks to impose higher penalties for non-compliance of the prescribed adjustments in the wage rates of workers), he has called attention to the constitutional mandate to the State “to afford full protection to labor and (guarantee) that workers shall be entitled not only to security of tenure and humane conditions of work but also living wage and participation in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits . . . .”

The public policies like the above that Noynoy champions in the Senate are also spelled out in the LP platform such as the undertaking therein to:

“. . . ensure that every employee has a right to participate in decision-making in their enterprise” and “set up a program for Industrial Partnership to help companies and their employees find the precise form of partnership which best suit them.”

“ . . . legislate to establish the right of every private sector employee in a substantial company to have access to a share in ownership and/ or in the profit they help to create” and “encourage profit-related pay, employee share-ownership schemes and employee buy-outs.”

“. . . spread employee ownership and participation” in order to “encourage wages to be set according to the profitability of individual firms.”

Given the profound political philosophy, goals and visions evident in the LP platform as well as in actual measures being pursue to implement them, aren’t we in fact seeing in Noynoy and Mar a tandem not merely promising honesty and good governance but of Weberian charismatic “bulls in the China shop” in the pursuit of a unifying ideology geared up to break away from traditional authority?

It’s been moreover pointed out in another relevant post that certain of Nonoy’s legislative initiatives, radical as they may seem, are indicative of his being “not simply a Jeffersonian democrat Ninoy was (or anthropocentric Cory was). He is his own man.”

These estimations of Noynoy based on facts are over against the unflattering claim in the Inquirer editorial based on suppositions: “Noynoy, of course, is the best medium of his message: he is his own best personality. But he should disabuse the public of the notion that he is ‘nice’ but lightweight, a little less glib than his father and famous show-biz sister, but with none of the former’s substance and the latter’s entertainment value. This would involve nothing less than a presidential makeover.”

Au contraire, the substantive Noynoy at this stage of his political calling is somehow antithetical at least to the glib, intractable and, yes, formal Ninoy, the “Wonder Boy” of Philippine politics before Martial Law clipped his wings (Although, Ninoy, incarcerated for more than seven years, was transformed into a statesman whose commitment to liberty, democracy and social justice has grown to become essentially visceral rather than merely nominal or theatrical).

A contemporary commentary of a sliver of our history during EDSA II hopefully will explain the juxtaposition being made:

If the forces that had opposed the dictatorship of Marcos and formed the core of the People Power I movement had been for the most part as clandestine in their inception as the secret revolutionary movement founded by Andres Bonifacio against Spain, the second people power was public and global from the start. At the height of the uprising, inq7.net has claimed its website was the 11th most visited in the Internet world. The Filipino Diaspora (many of whom were driven out in self-exile by the excesses of Marcos), fomented by the excitement and exigencies of the moment, joined the revolt as “virtual” rebels firing forth their two-cent worth of fireballs in various Philippine oriented websites that proliferated.

It was during this open season against the beleaguered Erap that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), then the Vice-President of the Philippines, left the Estrada Cabinet as Social Welfare secretary to join the snowballing movement. GMA, an economist, educator and journalist, and who won the vice-presidency by seven million votes, one of the largest margins in Philippine history, thereafter sought to form a coalition representing various segments of Philippine society with a view to proposing a national agenda that would address the many ills afflicting the nation. For one who had long been seen as a potential presidential successor, her move though perceived by many to be quite belated was propitious.

I was however among those who did not withhold suggesting her proposal betrayed her lack of deep-rooted visions. And drawing a Ninoy Aquino analogy, I thought that, in hindsight, while Ninoy knew that he needed as much power to transform the nation as Marcos had wielded to secure his dictatorship, Ninoy himself did not seem to have planned long enough to bequeath at least his own vision if the Marcos regime would call Ninoy’s gambit of ultimate sacrifice ala Rizal.

My supposition was if GMA, then so close to the vicissitudes of power, was just about to formulate her own national agenda, it should make one wonder if she was really ready for the national leadership or she was just coasting along well within the same dismal system that has failed the nation. If she was ready for the job, shouldn’t her preparation include some serious short- and long-term strategies for pursuing radical, if not revolutionary, solutions to all the malaises long scourging the country and its people? (Excerpts from Build or Perish!)

Like GMA, Noynoy may have been pushed into the vicissitudes of power ahead of his time. But his youth informed by the martyrdom of his father which tormented the entire nation and his political career forged by an enduring devotion to democratic values bequeathed to him by his mother, and in the face of his relatively unblemished political career, it would be unwarranted for anyone to claim that, his radical reformative-bent notwithstanding, the commitment of Noynoy to democracy, liberty and social justice is only formal rather than substantive.

Let me editorialize a bit myself. What I’m seeing is that the campaign of Nonoy Aquino and Mar Roxas represents the politics of vigor and the ideology of adventure (to appreciate this requires seriously vetting the public policies they’ve championed and the platform of Liberal Party that they head); on the contrary, Villar, Erap, Escudero and Teodoro almost uniformly embody the tired and tried political credo of preserving the status quo – the old and the familiar that serve only the few.

Indeed, Filipinos deserve more than we give them credit for. On the whole, they have been wising up (as those surveys confirm) to know the difference and therefore should be expected to place their political bets upon those who they think will give them a chance at change for the better without the need of violence.

Those who blame for example the ethnic traits of ordinary Filipinos for the sorry state of affairs of the country are unwittingly (but largely dumbly) serving as apologists for the status quo. They belong to that segment of our society that is the real enemy of change.

Nonoy Aquino appeared to have exhibited quite naturally the Socratic wisdom when following his awaited announcement (to run for president) yesterday a question was thrown at him about how to deal with the conflict in Mindanao differently than Erap and GMA. The exchange (courtesy of PinoyBuzz) proceeded thus:

Question: I am the national president of Aksyon Mindanao. What is your peace agenda for Mindanao, and what is the difference between you, Estrada and GMA?

Noynoy: Well, can I say what I hope to do if I am given that opportunity?

Number one, when I was studying, they said the first step to knowledge is to admit that you do not know and then you seek to know.

Then Noynoy, revealing more his pacifist approach, explained that the chasm between the contending parties is “too far apart” and went on to underscore “the need for more dialogue, the setting up of a (process?) whereby we can communicate better with each other.” Capping his answer, he has shown even more of his modesty: “And I will follow the advice of a man more learned than me . . . to not stop talking because if we stop talking it becomes war, war, (and) war.”

When asked about governance, his egalitarian bent came forth as spontaneously: “Governance? I think my political career is very, very clear. I want to make democracy work not just for the rich and well-connected but for everybody.”

On one occasion the youth of Athens milled around Socrates and debated eagerly of justice, he asked them: What is it?

Noynoy’s idea of justice seems non-definitional. In the same interview, Noynoy, as daring as Obama discoursing with unpredictable town folks, gave “two examples of my pet peeves” that somehow dealt with an expansive conception of injustice: ONE, the way we provide education to our children such as when bureaucrats “settle for substandard materials with which to educate our youths, year in and year out,” a tragedy that borders on tradition; that to persevere with it like the unbending Filipino love of “just-tiis” is actually injustice (“walang justice”). The implied promise is that the pwede na yan mentality (to echo the infamous line of FV’s benignO) will not be repeated and will end on his watch. The OTHER is the unfinished quest for the recovery of Marcos ill-gotten wealth. This unfortunate saga is at the very least testimony that our “judicial” justice is not swift at all, and Noynoy posed the possibility of exploring whether resort to the exercise of “political will” would be appropriate to speed up the process.

Now, how will President Noynoy handle our economic woes? He’s to the point as any empirical economist worth her title: “efficiency and maximization of resources” (surely, he expects to be probed more on what these entail on the campaign trail). But the punch line on this score was reminiscent not of the exact thinking of Socrates but the quick wit of his father: “Last night, I had a briefing of how unwise the utilization of resources of the state has been for the past nine years of this current dispensation. Unfortunately, this professor of mine seems to have forgotten the lessons she taught me. I kept my notes.”

The ghost of flamboyant Ninoy lingered a bit more: “I will be a president that will be missed by the time I step down.” The flashy finishing fatal blow: “I do look forward to the time that I will step down.”

Senator Hatch did not equivocate during his appearance on Sunday at CNN’s Sate of the Union hosted by John King. “She ought to be considered” (to fill the senate seat left vacant by the death of Ted Kennedy), Hatch said.

“I’m for it” too, Senator Dodd agreed with his colleague in the same program. “She brings talent and ability to (the Senate),” Dodd added.

Massachusetts votes a Kennedy to public office as a package deal. Supporters simply assume a Kennedy platform: if elected, a Kennedy will serve as a “champion for those who (have) none.”

It is a matter of history that public service is instinctive in a Kennedy politician, a fact in American life once again reaffirmed by political foes and friends alike during the memorializing of the Kennedy legacy as a result of the passing of the last of the brothers who lived long enough to become the “soul of the Democratic party.”

It is therefore no exaggeration for one to claim that Kennedy politics, those for instance addressing immigration, civil rights, health care, education, discrimination, voluntarism, etc, is actually equivalent to Democratic politics. Thus, should Vicki Kennedy choose to take up the challenge (a Massachusetts law will still have to be changed to allow her appointment before the special elections), not only that pursuits of the Democratic Party platform would be considered as given, her past achievements would also likely be seen as more or less secondary. The expectation is that she will carry the political torch in the Kennedy tradition, notwithstanding that she does not even carry a direct Kennedy DNA (she is of Lebanese descent).

Now, is it as rational for Filipinos to expect Senator Noynoy Aquino to carry on the Aquino legacy if chosen as their leader? Or you rather think it is as logical for Filipinos to believe that Noynoy Aquino as the next president of the republic would ignore the martyrdom of his father as well as the gains of the Yellow Revolution and deny restoring the political and constitutional civilities that have been undermined in the manner that his mother, Cory Aquino, restored the civil liberties and democratic institutions the Marcos dictatorship had taken away from them?

Let’s not forget that Filipinos have learned many of their democratic practices from their American mentors. But the fact of the matter is that majority of Americans still lack the sophistication in the way elites talk and think about politics. What we moreover know is that Americans in the main are not concerned with policy questions during elections (e.g., voting for specific economic or foreign policy) and more often than not, don’t even vote for “conservative” or “liberal” platforms. They vote with their guts.

So, does it make political sense at all if Vicki Kennedy does a Noynoy Aquino?

Mrs Aquino’s husband Senator Ninoy Aquino was finally granted national hero status with Congress creating a national holiday in his honor. It was much belated since Mrs Aquino would never have thought of making her husband one during her term. President FVR recognized Ninoy’s hero status by presidential proclamation. The vast majority of Pinoys agreed although there is some dissent.

Foremost of the dissenters is Frankie Sionil Jose who writes that Ninoy is indeed heroic and a martyr, he is no national hero. For him it is Rizal and Rizal only that should have the honor for his deeds alone made this nation for what it is now.(BTW, that’s the same argument he makes why Fernando Zobel should not be a National Artist. I think with this current National Artist ruckus, the arguments will be revived! But that is another story)

Of course not all agree with Sionil-Jose. What about Andres Bonifacio?

Rizal was “canonized” not by the interloping Americans but by Emilio Aguinaldo and la Republica Filipina who decreed our first national holiday, December 3o as Rizal Day (And not June 19 as the revisionists would have it). The Americans saw fit to ride on the Rizal adulation and craftily made a spin of  their imperialistic own. This is the  basis of the hook, line and sinker propaganda dished out by the silly Left when I was an undergraduate. “Rizal was an American minted national hero” they said and Bonifacio should be the one.

While Bonifacio indeed is a national hero, he has been relegated to the unenviable “assistant national hero” status. He is just like an associate professor who wants to be chair of his/her department and can’t get promoted due to political reasons. Rizal remains the National Hero and people still go into apoplectic fits on changing the color of his childhood home or when he was pictured wearing a barong and eating “tuyo”. In contrast, Bonifacio’s house is now a mall, the founding site of the Katipunan a commercial building, the site of that contentious “Cry” is unresolved, Bonifacio is the subject of a nasty children’s ditty and we don’t know where his bones are. Now hardly anyone goes into a fit if Ka Andres is maligned!

Similarly when another hero’s bahay kubo, Apolinario Mabini’s house was moved from Nagtahan to Santa Mesa, hardly anyone made a fit!

Maybe we should just have one national hero. All other heroes should be in supporting cast! While Congress can legislate, acclamation always comes from the people throughout time. Methinks this is what our honorable Representatives should consider before considering Mrs Aquino as a national hero. Let the traditional mourning period pass.  The worst thing that can happen is that one or two generations from now, Mrs Aquino would be considered a supporting national hero to husband Ninoy! That would rile the feminists and do no justice to Mrs Aquino at all.

When President Quezon died in August 1944, biographer and national artist Carlos Quirino likened Quezon to a “paladin of Philippine freedom” and in the same league as Rizal. Today, we do recognize that Quezon was heroic, but we are fans not due to his heroism but because of his being a wily politician that is imprinted forever on the nature of our republic. Of course Quezon will always be  a hero to Quezon City, Quezon, Palawan and the Province of Quezon.

As for Rizal, national acclamation and adulation continues and some consider him divine!

The variety of symbols that have come to represent the ideals that Aquino stood for trace their ultimate origins back to her husband Benigno Aquino Jr. The concept of “Laban” as a rallying cry for a Philippine “Opposition” goes back to Benigno Aquino’s leadership of said “Opposition” against President Marcos and became (as far as I personally recall) a household slogan in 1979 1978 when parliamentary elections were held.

Back then the dominant political party of the Philippine “Opposition” was known simply as Laban.

Then President Ferdinand Marcos’s party was the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan or “New Society Movement” — popularly known as the KBL.

Humour me and consider this brief thought experiment. Forget for one moment the personalities, intentions, and agendas behind the two political parties in 1979 1978 and focus on their names alone:

- New Society Movement

- Fight

The first implied a To Be proposition for the Filipino People. The latter implied no more than a contrarian position to the incumbent.

Fast-forward thirty years to 2009 and regard the political landscape of today.

What has changed?.

Only one thing has changed. Back in 1979 1978, said contrarian position included a fight to “free” the Filipino people as a direct and measurable outcome of toppling a real dictatorship. Today in 2009, there is still some sort of “fight” to topple an unpopular President. But there is no “freedom” to fight for because it already exists in Philippine Society.

Since 1979 1978, the names of Philippine political “parties” have become a bit more elaborate, hyphenated, and hybridised. But the “Opposition” position remains essentially the same. After all the symbols have been gestured and exhibited and after all the platitudes and slogans have been recited, it proposes essentially NOTHING.

Since 1979 1978 the word “Laban” has become but another platitudinal embellishment on the names of “Opposition” “parties” that followed. “Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino”, “PDP-Laban”, Laban this, Laban that, Laban in da Morning, Laban in d’Evening. The dilution of the hard Laban of 1979 1978 into the insult-on-the-intelligence softdrink that it is today reflects the dilution of what the Philippine “Opposition” “stood for” in the last thirty years — from toppling totalitarianism to merely engineering and exploiting unpopularity. From being truly united against a clear-and-present enemy to being a flaccid, fragmented, sorry excuse of a “force” against an ill-defined bogeyman.

Cory Aquino, the last of the only two direct embodiments of “Laban” and the colour yellow has died. The yellow ribbons will be worn, mass rallies will erupt, balloons released, and gestures of solidarity will probably be made at scales not seen since 1986 (or at least 2001).

But when the euphoria has died down, all the signs-of-the-crosses have been made, the adrenaline subsided, and the streets swept clean (or maybe not), there will only be one question left staring us in the face:

What next?

Remember that question folks.

It has stood unanswered for the last several decades.

Someone ought to build a monument to symbolise this question — so elegant in its two-word simplicity (so probably not fitting the Filipino’s aesthetic tastes); because I foresee this question as becoming a far more enduring symbol of what it means to be Filipino than the concept of Laban ever will be.

============
Join us on Facebook!

Corazon C. Aquino died and so was Ninoy, while we remain alive and myopic of their sacrifice and missed the golden opportunity to draw strength from their death. We remain fractious, immature and greedy and offered cypress leaves to honor their graves instead of living out the ideals of their dreams and a vision for a prosperous country. Alas, we have chosen to live a meaningless life than seek a glorious death. In ‘Termites from Within’, I wrote:

“One of finest 20th century heroes of the country went home in August 1983 from a 3-year exile from the US with a prophetic candor that the Filipinos were worth dying for. Few minutes after his plane had landed, his military escorts shot him at the back of his head, few stair steps before his tired and weary feet longing for home touch the drab and irreverent dusty tarmac. A commission was formed to investigate the murder and it was headed by a woman jurist who was loyal to Malacanang Palace. As expected the commission found the military escorts not responsible for Senator Aquino’s death and pointed to a lone communist diehard, Rolando Galman, as the assassin. The nation had wailed “cover-up” and a “whitewash.”

Another Commission known as the Narvasa Commission had been constituted and it found that it was Senator Aquino’s 26 military escorts who killed the former Senator. On the basis of this finding, all the military escorts were charged with murder in 1985 but were all acquitted. After Mr. Marcos fled to Hawaii in 1986, the Supreme Court declared a mistrial and another trial was conducted and found his 16 military escorts guilty of the murder. The SC which had been subservient to Mr. Marcos had found its spine back under Cory’s skirt of newfound freedom.

The mastermind was never known, but the people had the right suspect in their collective minds. Before Marcos was forced out of power by the EDSA Revolution in 1986, he has called for a snap Presidential election. He was pitted against Senator Aquino’s widow, Cory, a nickname she was fondly called by her supporters. She was backed up by the powerful Catholic Church under Cardinal Jaime Sin. After the nation has voted, both had claimed victory. Marcos was declared the winner by the Batasang Pambansa while Cory was declared the winner by the tumultuous crowds on the streets of Metro Manila. While the nation was polarized, ambitious members of the Reform the Armed Forces Movement under Gregorio Honasan tried to stage a coup.

One of his underlings spilled the beans over to Mrs. Marcos. She wanted to preempt the coup by looking for its most likely patron, Secretary of Defense Juan Ponce Enrile who, meanwhile, had talked with PNP Chief Fidel Ramos into staging a mutiny at Camp Crame at EDSA. Cardinal Sin called on the faithful to go to EDSA and lend support to the mutineers. It was during this time that Secretary Enrile when interviewed by the media said that Cory was robbed of her victory as President of the Republic because of the massive cheating during the snap presidential election. Cory meantime was in the Visayas under the care of some catholic nuns. Civilian protesters shouting “Cory, Cory” along EDSA had paralyzed Metro Manila while in the provinces were glued to their televisions or their radios waiting with bated breath of what could happen with massive civilian protesters confronting military tanks and armed soldiers of the Marcos government in the streets of Manila.

Time Magazine writer Pico Iyer wrote on January 5, 1987:

“Finally, the improbable became the impossible. Marcos’ tanks rolled toward the crowds, only to be stopped by nuns kneeling in their path, saying the rosary. Old women went up to gun-toting marines and disarmed them with motherly hugs. Little girls offered their flowers to hardened combat veterans. In the face of such quiet heroism, thousands of Marcos loyalists defected; many simply broke down in tears.”

The nation had a sigh of relief when Mr. Marcos, his family and cronies fled to Hawaii on February 26, 1986. Cory said after Marcos had fled the country that paved the way for her own rule over a very fractious society:

“We have achieved our freedom with courage and determination, and most important, in peace. A new life starts for our country tomorrow. A life filled with hope and, I believe, a life that will be blessed with peace and progress.”

Peace and progress that proved to be elusive as her six year term as President had been plagued by a series of military mutinies which had been staged by military personnel who had been sidelined from their previous lucrative assignments and have lost the their lifestyles under Marcos. These coup attempts had sent the economy in yet another tailspin.

The nation was hopeful that the country would have moved towards economic prosperity under Cory because she owed no one political debts to pay. She was catapulted to power by the people and only the people she must listen to. But the
adventurous segment of the military had denied our nation the opportunity to achieve stability, progress and peace.

Cory should have taken power as a popularly elected president of the Republic but the ambitious military who would like to be seen as part of Cory’s triumph would like her to serve as a President of a provisional government. Either as a provisional president or a regularly elected eleventh President of the Republic, Cory was sworn nonetheless as President by the Justice of the Supreme Court.

The military mutineers were seen by some of us as heroes of EDSA while others saw them the way they should be seen: “plain opportunists.” These personalities were martial law architects and implementers for 12 years who have seen the upsurge of civilian support for Cory and had decided to abandon their commander-in-chief in a fast sinking ship.

Instead of looking at these coup plotters as villains we see them as the saviors of the Republic. We elected some of them to high government positions and they continue to derive benefits from the very institutions they had subverted in favor of a Marcos one-man rule and from the institutions they tried to subvert in favor of a military junta. On the other hand, the coup plotters against Cory were punished with ten push-ups by her Chief of Staff, Fidel Ramos and some of those prominent coup plotters found their way back in the corridors of power as senators or as executives of lucrative government corporations.

The perception that most of those in power were guilty one way or another of subverting our democratic institutions had prevented us from imposing the full measure of punishment to those who openly committed acts of treason and subversion against the republic. To our minds, only the members of the New People’s Army, the members of the Moro National Liberation Front and the members of other left-leaning groups deserved to be punished by death or by outright execution. The most sinister plotters that had destabilized the nation and ruin our economy and the raiders and plunderers of our treasury do not deserve the kind of punishment meted out to other subversive elements of our society when in matters of degree, the latter wrongdoers have wrought more havoc and destructions to our motherland. This is the reason why after Mr. Marcos and his family had fled to Hawaii in 1986 and most of his kins and his retinue of crony capitalists had come back, we have yet to see them go to jail.

Filipinos have short term memory and a very forgiving race. We do not know exactly whether it is our vice or our strength as a nation.

Guest Writer: Jose C. Camano is a lawyer blogger. You can visit his blog at http://jcc34.worpress.com

Does the Filipino youth still know who Ninoy Aquino is? Or is he just a face that they see on the P500 peso bill? With all the problems that we face these days as well as the great digital divide between generations, it’s not hard to imagine young men and women more consumed by the drive to survive and going through the daily grind than to actually give a damn about the country. Let’s face it… I myself am only 26 years old and I come from a political family yet I’m not fully aware of what Ninoy was all about. All I know is that he “died” for the country. What more for the younger generations?

While writing this post, I made it a point to do more research on Ninoy. In my journey of getting to know him more, I stumbled upon this uploaded video on Youtube which really made an impact. It’s his last interview before he boarded the plane to Manila and eventually got shot when his feet finally touched the Philippines once again.

Ninoy Aquino: Last Interview

This is such a powerful interview. You can really feel the passion and love he had for the country and for the Filipino people. I remember watching this when I was still in Grade School but I really didn’t appreciate it back then. But now I fully understand what Ninoy was about.

He is something that we actually need now more than ever. Ninoy’s memory offers a solution to all the conflict happening in Mindanao, the blatant corruption in government, the constant killing of journalists, and the declining economy. It begins with all of us – by personally acknowledging that we are Filipinos and that this is indeed a country that we can be proud of. Bottom line is this: we need to teach the youth to give a damn about this country and not to teach them that the future to a good life is outside the Philippines.

In this day and age, we don’t need one hero to lead our nation into greatness. We all have to find that Ninoy in our own hearts and and we need to start believing. Ninoy Aquino believed that the Filipino was worth dying for. Do we feel the same way?

25 years since, we are still standing at that crossroad in our nation’s history, wondering, agonizing, why our leaders, why we as a people, have failed miserably to secure the dream of the man who died on that fateful day, as he came home and breathed The Philippine Air one last time.

We have had our share of bad luck, but most will agree, that it is because we never truly have come out of the shadow of the martial law days, the shadow of corruption, and the shadow of selfish governance, that has led us to stand still, stagnant, and not knowing a prosperous reality.

Whether you are a supporter of Ninoy, or a believer, or maybe not, the fact is that a man’s death sparked a revolution, which the entire nation squandered. We are waking up to reality, that our existence today, is partly owed to this man, but what we have done with that event has put us all to shame.

This, of course, is not a blatant attempt to put blame on the general public, but to let us finally take responsibility for a nation that we call ours. Let us take responsibility and move forward. To remain engaged in our own politics, because like it or not, we have the final say as to whether or not we pave the way for a brighter Philippine future.

A nation is under attack, not only by armed terrorists in Mindanao, but from an Administration keen on holding on to power, from government officials with selfish motives, from murderers and kidnappers who thrive on instability, and of course we are under attack by poverty.

So many obstacles, issues, and problems to tackle. We can take this and shy away from the challenge, or we can remain steadfast and welcome this opportunity to prove ourselves wrong, and finally take as our own, a better future for our youth and the youth of tomorrow.

May we remain active in public policy, local issues, and national issues. It is by remaining engaged that we can show honor to a Senator that died for his nation 25 years ago.

I believe all too often, that there are those, not as gifted as Ninoy, but can do as much good as the man himself. With that thought, must now come the belief, that maybe, just maybe, it is in life that we can do our best for our country. Ninoy Aquino said that The Filipino is worth dying for. We must continue, and say to ourselves that indeed, The Filipino is also worth living for. And living must entail a sense of national engagement, participative action, and focus towards economic and social prosperity and accountability, if indeed we are serious about a better Philippines.

“The nation-wide rebellion is escalating and threatens to explode into a bloody revolution. There is a growing cadre of young Filipinos who have finally come to realize that freedom is never granted, it is taken. Must we relive the agonies and the blood-letting of the past that brought forth our Republic, or can we sit down as brothers and sisters and discuss our differences with reason and goodwill?”

- Benigno Aquino, Jr.
August 21, 1983

It’s been a full quarter century since Ninoy said those last words, and sparked the bloodless movement that was the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution. Today, Ninoy’s specter looms over us, waiting for the answer to that question: savage bloodshed, or peaceful discussion? Or their iterations: savage discussion, or bloodshed in the name of peace?

It’s often said that war – the way it’s going on now, or some form of it – is the crucible for lasting peace in Mindanao. I disagree: the crucible was supposed to be the peace process. No matter how protracted or how lame it was, the peace process was (at least back then) the only acceptable way of dealing with the possibility of Moro secession. You don’t have newspaper headlines back then of families who escape their homes and go to stores asking for lodging. You don’t have stories of innocent civilians getting their bodies hacked off by rampaging lunatics.

That crucible failed. Incompatibility, misunderstandings, miscommunication, and even incompetence made possible the all-out offensive that threatens to turn a rivulet of blood into a crimson tide of death. In a way, if the bloodshed is not stemmed, indeed we will have to relive the agonies and the blood-letting of a future that, all possibilities considered, may bring forth the Bangsamoro Republic. This may very well be the test of whether or not these 7,107 islands can stand together and preserve its union under one flag, one country, and can build a single sense of nationhood.

Yet to expect something so Lincoln-like of the current Administration – or from the bandit terrorists of the MILF who compromised a prospect for peace and self-determination for its brethren – is too much to expect. It’s one thing to compromise the sovereignty guaranteed and explicated in the Constitution in the name of a MoA. It’s another thing to take the lives of innocent civilians in a mad, unexplainable rampage.

This expectation – as Ninoy himself lived as an example of – falls to the youth of the Philippines. Make no mistake about it, but in the next 10 to 20 years, with the way things are going, we’ll inherit a broken nation that few grown persons will ever take the responsibility for, much less repair.

Here’s to hoping that when the time comes, our generation will not allow this farce and this blot in the history of our nation, to ever happen again.