It has been two days, but I still feel the need to post this belated entry about the 25th anniversary of the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution.

One thing that is apparent in the public opinion is either disinterest, especially among the youth many of whom had not been born during those times (watch this video of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism to see how random ordinary students fared when asked about the 1986 Revolution) or disillusionment. The disappointment is real because indeed, the socio-economic and political conditions that spawned the uprising is the same. Twenty-five years later, we are almost no better than we were before (of course, I’m not saying this as a matter of experience, having been born after 1986).

Another thing that is readily apparent in all the government-sponsored revelries is the malicious and conscious effort of the ruling class to reduce the commemoration of the revolution into a middle class pageantry instead of recognizing the militant and collective execution of the uprising causing the overthrow of the dictator. In all irony, the message of the government in all the Presiden’t speeches and the mainstream mass media in many of their news stories is that there is no need for another popular uprising, and that the very acts that constituted the revolution, the militant and collective mobilizations of citizens into the streets, are now irrelevant. The revolution for social change, according to them, can now be executed through the government and through charity and tamed voluntary work.

Tonyo Cruz in his article at the Asian Correspondents made a similar observation.

The traditional politicians know People Power is a most potent tool in the people’s arsenal, along with strikes, boycotts, demonstrations and other mass actions. That is why they routinely tell us that People Power is passe, archaic, outdated. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had every reason to berate People Power. She knew full well that she was a legitimate target, considering the level of hatred her misrule had inspired among the public.

…The traditional political elite and their mass media cannot even make their minds on how to tell and retell the story of EDSA and the long fight against Marcos. The focus are on icons and shrines, on names and faces of media-manufactured personalities, as if the uprising could have succeeded with only them acting by their their lonesome. The official list of state-canonized EDSA heroes is relatively short and is a continuing insult to the PEOPLE who comprised People Power from 1972 until 1986, and from 1998-2001.

Edwin Espejo said in his own Asian Correspondents article that, “What Edsa resolve was the contradiction between and among the ruling elite. It did not resolve the fundamental differences between the basic masses and the ruling class.” But then, up until the present, the contradictions continue as we witness their perpetual blame game play out on TV. Wee see past and current Presidents blaming each other for the sad political and socio-economic condition the Philippines finds itself in. One former President, for example, called another the “Icon of Corruption”, ironically forgetting that he was convicted for Plunder. Their mindless bickering help make us see the obvious, that all of them were never really different from each other, for they implement the same kinds of socio-economic policies and maintain the same kind of political order.

In a statement, Sonny Africa of the Ibon Foundation said that “The 1986 People Power uprising created a moment of national unity and international credibility that could have been the starting point of real economic progress.” The statement went on by declaring what the government of Corazon Aquino should’ve done in order to uplift the economic condition of the country, but did not.

Sweeping genuine agrarian reform should have been done immediately while the landed families were on the defensive against a surging mass movement. This would have unleashed the country’s agricultural potential, raised rural incomes and broken the back of peasant poverty. An industrialization program should have begun that preserved what domestic manufacturing existed and that phased the steady development of key and strategic industries. Foreign debts of the Marcos administration should have been cancelled and the resources freed up poured into domestic education, health, housing and infrastructure.

Even just 10 to 15 years of progressive and nationalist policies since 1986 would have been enough to start building solid domestic economic foundations.

This analysis is affirmed by Arnold Padilla of BAYAN who recounted the economic policies that were implemented by the first Aquino government, from privatization and deregulation, to perpetuating the country’s bondage on foreign and domestic debt, to lopsided trade liberalization policies imposed by foreigners — all of which, clearly, has been the same policies implemented by all Philippine Presidents thereafter.

The Communist Party of the Philippines, in its statement, recalls the momentous mobilization of millions of Filipinos into the streets and the many events that transpired before it. It also reaffirms its analysis of the social ills that plague Philippine society and the need for genuine change through the national democratic revolution.

The successive reactionary regimes under Fidel V. Ramos, Joseph Estrada and Gloria Arroyo put into place one policy after another in accordance with the IMF-imposed thrust of liberalization, privatization, deregulation and denationalization. These policies strengthened foreign control of the commanding heights of the economy, caused the mass destruction of productive forces and slowed down local production, deepened dependence on foreign debt and trade, worsened unemployment and reduced the Philippines into a supplier of migrant labor and call-center agents.

… Twenty-five years after the 1986 people power uprising at EDSA, the Filipino people still aspire for fundamental changes in the social system. The ruling reactionary state has failed to address the people’s patriotic and democratic demands. The worsening crisis of the semicolonial and semifeudal system after four regimes point to the continuing validity of the national democratic revolution being waged by the people.

Sure, we are disillusioned and frustrated. But we should not allow the disappointment caused by the leaders of the ruling class to discredit our militant exercise of collective strength, because if we fall into this trap of frustration and inaction, what else are we left with? The perpetuation of the status quo.

To borrow another piece from Arnold Padilla: “To be sure, ousting a strongman who ruled for two decades was not a mistake. But EDSA 1986 as well as its repeat in 2001 taught us three invaluable lessons about change. First, a regime no matter how fascist is no match against a determined and united people. Second, forcing out a dictatorship without overhauling the decaying political and economic system that propped it up will create more corrupt and oppressive rulers in the future. And third, changing Presidents does not end poverty, only the dismantling of the structures that perpetrate poverty does.“

Indeed, the revolution is unfinished.

Other articles and commentaries:

(1) Cory Aquino’s betrayal of People Power by Carlos Conde
(2) EDSA 1: What really failed? by Carlos Maningat
(3) EDSA Babies Unite! by Kabataan Party-List Rep. Mong Palatino
(4) The Stealing of a revolt, the Daily Tribune’s editorial last February 25
(5) The Chronology of a Revolution by Angela Stuart Santiago
(6) Untrue story, unsung heroes of EDSA