Revolutions, the Biggest Overstatement of Philippine Politics

“A viable civil society can mitigate conflicts and impose quality of citizenship without relying exclusively on the privatism of the marketplace.”
~ Philippe Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl, What is democracy is and… is not

 ***

So I was watching History Channel’s documentary on the French Revolution last night on Youtube, and this professor suddenly said, “Marie Antoinette was like the Imelda Marcos of her time.” I chuckled right off the bat. It was a comment only the nerdiest of people would laugh at, which needless to say includes me. 

That comment suddenly placed me in a nostlagic state: I remembered the good ‘ol days as a kid, hearing about so much hype about the “People Power” revolution in the Philippines during the late 80s. Of course, when you’re a kid you don’t necessarily have an in-depth understanding of such political matter. I placed People Power in quotation because the word People doesn’t really represent the plurality of the Philippine Masses. For one thing, the country itself is divided into three geographical divisions (Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao) and I hardly think any of those Muslim people in the south or Catholics in the center have participated in this so-called revolution since the “revolution” itself was merely concentrated in the capital of Manila.

 In political theory, a revolution is defined as a:

Rapid, fundamental, and often violent transformation of a country’s

1.       state structure,
2.       class structure, and
3.       dominant ideology
4.       that is accompanied and caused by mass-based revolts from below.

Now let’s make a checklist.
1. Did the Philippine altered it’s state structure?
Answer: Maybe. The state’s structure is supposedly now more “democratic”. However, it still possesses the same kind of bureacratic system that it did even before the Marcos’ regime took power.

2. Was there alteration in the class structure?
Answer: Definitely not. Class division is still visibly evident. Simply put, the richer gets richer, while the poor stays poor. 

3. So how about the dominant ideology?
Answer: There was no change in dominant ideology. The Phillippines remains to be a capitalist country, thriving on individual private gain as opposed to collective public gain.

4. Lastly, was it accompanied and caused by mass-based revolts from below?
Answer: This one is tricky. There was a mass-based revolt from below. However, one cannot help but wonder if those “social elites” who helped the revolution had an agenda of their own.

—

So what is my point here? My point is to say that the revolution was indeed successful in some levels. For instance, overthrowing autocracy to make way again for democracy. However, the Philippines is still a socially divided country. Unless unity between the dominant Catholics of the North and the dominant Muslims of the South come to a solid agreement, the country will remain in shambles.

The regions are too literally divided. When I was a kid studying in Manila, I had trouble memorizing all these “regional divisions”. It was all too much to bear. I mean Canada is way more massive, and yet, they don’t have these elaborate divisions on their belt. When children are introduced to this map in school, they gain no historical understanding of these places. All they see are lines, separating one region to another. They are made to memorize, and not understand the concept behind these divisions. I mean, even now as an adult in my early 20s, I still don’t understand the need to divide the country into several regions.

The Phillipine Regional Map;
Did I mention this is the beginner’s map? You should see the real one.

 The country is already divided by the sea and dividing it even further will only cause more confusion and misunderstanding between regions. There is a great need to revolutionize the bureaucratic system of the Philippines. The literacy rate is high and yet, the country’s social and economic prospect remains low. For me, it just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.  I know I’m ranting here like a mad cow with no concrete understanding of Philippine politics. But I do make some valid points. In the end, long term goals will always supersede short term goals. We already accomplished #1 and #4 of what makes a revolution, a revolution. Now, it’s time to make #2 and #3 happen. Until such time comes, full-fledge social and economic development for the Philippines will nevertheless remain a myth.

 That is all.

Adieu.