Thirty years on, we are still searching for the relevance of Edsa 1986. In fact, we have had two Edsas and the country is still looking for that elusive something that could translate what the people did during those four tumultuous days of February 1986 into something that could transform us into a better society.
After all, we introduced to the world a method of getting rid of despotic leaders peacefully called people power.
Alas, in many ways, we are back to square one.
The only difference is that we are at least choosing our own leaders in elections every three years. Otherwise, the Filipino people are still poor, corruption is still rampant and has in fact gotten worse, and human rights violations, a major issue during the martial law years of the Marcos administration, is as prevalent as ever. It is as if we got rid of one bad apple to be replaced with a more rotten apple.
Despite these, we continue to celebrate the so-called spirit of Edsa. They say that victory has many fathers and defeat is an orphan. This is true and because EDSA86 was successful, there are many claiming ownership to the franchise. We often hear of the many exploits of people who participated and took part in activities that eventually led to the resignation of Enrile and Ramos on Feb. 22 that ignited those dramatic events that we are so familiar with and led to the departure of President Marcos to Hawaii on the fourth day of the uprising.
These individual stories are growing as the years go by forgetting that no person or group can claim ownership of EDSA86. The people own EDSA86 and it should be that way.
We also often hear of terms like keepers of the Edsa flame or guardians of Edsa as if these people have the sole right to proclaim themselves to be such. This kind of attitude has only kept the society divided. And what did we expect, we have a President who puts a yellow ribbon on his chest wherever he goes and is the most divisive leader that this country has ever had in recent memory. One of the primary duties of a leader is to try to unite his or her people. That leader must try to heal any societal wound that is dividing the people instead of being the promoter of divisiveness. Unfortunately for us, we have a President who cannot rise above personal pettiness in order to be truly the leader of all Filipinos instead of a segment of the population who belong to the “yellow army.” People of countries that he has visited must be asking the question whether that yellow ribbon on his chest is the national symbol of our country.
On this score President Aquino is an utter failure and it’s a pity. If there is any one big beneficiary of EDSA86, it is his family and if he has any worth at all as a leader, he should be promoting unity during these trying times instead of fostering disunity. Is it any surprise therefore, that key participants from the military in the Edsa revolt led by Senator Enrile have never attended any Edsa celebration?
To them, the events that led to EDSA86 are viewed differently. They do not agree with that narrative that has been propagated by the “yellow army” that minimizes the participation of the military and emphasizes the participation of those that are aligned and sympathetic with the Aquino administration. Although there are some books written about EDSA86, the whole story is still waiting to be written.
We need to have a definitive and objective book about EDSA86. Otherwise, two versions depending on where one stands will be the only ones out there to be read and digested. There is also this ongoing debate albeit not openly about which effort was responsible in toppling the Marcos regime. Was it the civilians who mobilized to help the beleaguered military of Enrile and Ramos at the instigation of the late Cardinal Sin, or was it the military who broke away from President Marcos that was responsible for ending Martial Law?
Coups de etat have many models. In Thailand, Burma, and other countries, the military can mount a coup without the help or assistance of the people or civil society. We have seen this recently in Thailand.
For our country, however, the model is different. The people or public on its own cannot force a president to resign. This was demonstrated during the time of President Arroyo when there was a very strong demand by the civil society for her to step down but this did not happen because the military establishment did not join.
The success of the Marcos and Estrada ousters was because the military and civil society groups joined hands because of convergence of interests to force the ouster of both. So, the debate as to who was the preponderant group is pointless. The more important discussion should be about what happened afterwards. Are we a better society because of EDSA86 and EDSA2001 or has anything changed at all? In the many years that the anniversary of EDSA86 has been celebrated, the recurring theme has always been to dwell into the past instead of trying to move on.
If we as people have been able to set aside the brutality of the Japanese occupation and make friends with Japan, then we should also be able to move beyond the painful experiences of the martial law years for a better country. Only then can we truly celebrate the true meaning and relevance of EDSA86.