Dishonesty about Edsa

Mariano Carrasco

THOSE who do not tell the truth about Edsa are helping a social distortion, and that will help no one. We should not be afraid of telling the truth. It will set  all of us free. It will help our society, our people, and government find its bearings and pursue proper social direction and reforms.

Long before Edsa, there were many groups and individuals  that struggled and fought the Marcos dictatorship and the unjust social system it stood for and protected. The truth is that the Edsa “revolution” is the product of a long social struggle. Long before Edsa, way back in the 1960s (or even before), 1970s, and early 1980s, the cause-oriented groups, the socialist or communist party and other moderate groups involved in peaceful struggles, had advocated and campaigned for  basic social changes which the status quo—including big business and big landlords , foreign interests, Marcos, his cronies and top military officials—did not want, resisted and suppressed.

I personally attended the seminars or political teach-ins of  the Kabataang Makabayan or KM here in Cagayan de Oro while I was yet a  student of Xavier University High School in 1972 and 1973.  Then, KM and allied leftist groups had denounced the unjust and oppressive system, symbolized or headed by President Ferdinand Marcos, who, at the height of  the social activism and protest actions and the communist insurgency, felt threatened and decided to impose Martial Law or military rule in September 1972.

Way back in 1969, my first year in XU High, our teacher in-charge, Ed Morales, had taught us that the economic structure of  society is such that a few wealthy families and foreign business who own and control a major portion of the country’s resources, land, and wealth, will naturally control politics, government, the educational system, the mass media and other social and cultural institutions to protect and promote their interests—to the prejudice of the vast majority who would be powerless, landless, homeless, impoverished, uneducated, and controllable and influenced by the mass media  and educational and other institutions, especially come election time. It was logical and reasonable. We were also taught that those who would advocate or struggle peacefully for social change would be suppressed by the ruling class which would use the military forces, the guardians of the status quo or existing social order. Hence, we were taught that an armed revolution or struggle, as a defensive measure, was inevitable to achieve social change or  social restructuring. (When Martial law was declared Ed Morales, who comes from Cotabato, was arrested and tortured.)

During those years before and after the declaration of  Martial Law in 1972 by Marcos, many in the left and other activist groups, including peaceful reformers and leading liberals and reform-minded politicians, had been kidnapped, arrested, tortured, and killed or went missing. During the so-called First Quarter Storm, and years after martial law, many college students (from UP, Ateneo de Manila,  other schools) joined protest actions that was perceived by government as communist-inspired. This kind of struggle  was headed by different groups, some militant, who believed in the armed struggle, and some moderate, who were asking for social reforms through peaceful protest actions. Both were suppressed by Marcos indiscriminately, including the liberal mass media.

That social struggle continued up to the 1980s, though it waned a bit in the mid 1970s due to the intense indoctrination of  Marcos’  New Society, a pretentious program for social reform. It included control of the mass media, and inclusion of the New Society in the school curriculum. But the massive poverty, unequal distribution of wealth, landlessness, landgrabbing, and foreign control of our economy from whom they sucked resources, went on and fueled a continuing demand and protest for social change, which incidentally, the dictator Marcos and his government and military fiercely defended using coercive means.  The assassination of  Ninoy Aquino  in August 21, 1983, whose wealthy family, had long been at odds with Marcos, and a leading liberal-minded politician supported by American liberals, raised the social protests to a boiling point.  All along, protest actions, transports strikes, “welga ng bayan”, rallies and marches against Marcos and the unjust system, both by militant and moderate groups, continued until Marcos was forced to call for a snap election in 1986 to stabilize the situation. The political instability was such that the economy and foreign business interests was on the verge of collapse, and the status quo was fearful of a communist takeover.

My estimate is that if Ferdinand Marcos did not exist, there would be someone like him who would behave in a similar fashion. Marcos, and the subsequent presidents after him, were simply reflections of an existing socio-economic and political order and the inevitable clash not only between those struggling for basic social changes and existing regime, but also a clash among the crocodiles of the elite.

With the coming elections, perhaps once again we are lured into a vicious cycle of deception, promises, vote-buying, and political circus that could likely become another big political dishonesty. This is simply an addition to the dishonesty about Edsa. But nevertheless, my wife Atty. Evangeline Carrasco is hopeful and optimistic, and she has decided to run for the 2nd congressional district of CDO as an independent.  If all would try to be honest as the BCBP espouses, then perhaps we could finally address the root causes of our social problems, and finally achieve a more just, better, and peaceful society. Then there would be no war. Perhaps those in the armed struggle would finally come down from the hills and find peace.  But that’s a very tall order. Let us pray.

 (Mariano B. Carrasco is a lawyer based in Cagayan de Oro.)