As we remember Cory Aquino, let us honor her by looking at her legacy, those six years she served as our Head of State, without our rose-colored glasses (or yellow). What were the things which she did in brilliant fashion and those things which she failed to do.
I know we’re still grieving over the loss of a dear friend and staunch defender of democracy. Cory Aquino was larger than life. She was a humble servant of the people.
And I really don’t want to alienate many of us who still suffer from Cory fever; that is most unbecoming of a gentleman.
I know we’re still grieving over the loss of a dear friend and staunch defender of democracy. Cory Aquino was larger than life. She was a humble servant of the people.
And I really don’t want to alienate many of us who still suffer from Cory fever; that is most unbecoming of a gentleman.
This early, however, we need to admit to ourselves that Cory is not EDSA. EDSA is entirely bigger than Cory. Cory was never (and I know Cory herself does not want to be referred to as the “Spirit of EDSA) EDSA. Yes, probably she was the icon of that revolt, but the very Spirit of EDSA is not synonymous with Cory. At this early, let’s recognize that EDSA, as we know it, is a continuing revolution, one that owe its beginnings from our forefathers, and surely, not entirely with the Aquino family. Our greatest mistake is when we linked the EDSA revolt with a living personality. When Cory fell from grace, the EDSA revolt went with her. We should not commit that mistake again. Let us view EDSA as what it is---a political phenomenon that once united everyone to do a concrete action.
Cory was instrumental in restoring democracy in our country; but we ask---what kind of democracy? Yes, she allowed freedom to thrive and institutionalize respect for human rights. She overhauled the 1973 Constitution and replaced that with the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Yet, look at our present charter and those of the previous ones, the change was not dramatic enough. Cory retained most of the pre-Martial law features of a republican-style state that allowed democratic space for propertied classes only.
Cory forgot that an authentic revolution entailed a total overhauling of the entire superstructure. She failed in this, probably because she was busy fending off constant threats to her government which emanated from previous allies and remnants of the “New Society”.
Yes, she did liberalized the public sphere, and promoted more democratic space. In so doing, however, she unwittingly or wittingly allowed the re-entry of elitist politics. Those who were marginalized by Marcos came back with a vengeance, and used the “multi-party” system as their entry point.
Cory was credited only with the fact that she revived the damaged careers of pre-Martial law politicians and allowed them to again re-populate the public sphere. It did not occur to Cory that, by not changing the political system, she unwittingly allowed greedy elites to again damage our political institutions.
Failing in that, Cory allowed other elites to share power with her, a costly misapplication of democracy. As these elites gain more power, Cory's power base is diminished. With a diminished power stature, Cory was put into a situation where she can no longer institute drastic changes, especially in more critical areas like economic relations.
Cory failed to change the nature of property and production relations, which were the core solution to the inherent flaw of the Philippine superstructure. She had a chance during the revolutionary government stage of her administration.
One basic flaw that Aquino failed to institute was genuine agrarian reform. Yes, Cory was indeed credited of having prioritized the program, even designated a governmental department to handle agrarian concerns; yet the program was, at best, a half-baked initiative. It was a patchwork program meant to appease both farmers and landlords. Cory was probably afraid of subverting the interests of her class. Her agrarian reform was a convenient accommodation for the landlord class; and not entirely reflective of the true version that could have changed the rural landscape in the most dramatic fashion.
That was a costly mistake because we lost that one chance of really curing the basic and fundamental flaw of the system.
Lastly, Cory also failed to formalize the application of ethical standards in governance. Yes, she did govern with utmost honesty and integrity. Yet, when she failed to streamline the bureaucracy and allowed its growth to continue without first weeding out those parasitic grafters that feed from the oversized belly of the system, Cory promoted the perpetuation of corruption. That was our one chance of reforming the bureaucracy but because of the inability of Cory to do those fundamental and substantive changes, we lost that opportunity.
These are the lessons that Cory gave us. If we, God willing, again tread the revolutionary path, let's do it the right way. Change the fundamental character and nature of our superstructure. There are certain ways on how to do it without costing too much.
Cory was instrumental in restoring democracy in our country; but we ask---what kind of democracy? Yes, she allowed freedom to thrive and institutionalize respect for human rights. She overhauled the 1973 Constitution and replaced that with the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Yet, look at our present charter and those of the previous ones, the change was not dramatic enough. Cory retained most of the pre-Martial law features of a republican-style state that allowed democratic space for propertied classes only.
Cory forgot that an authentic revolution entailed a total overhauling of the entire superstructure. She failed in this, probably because she was busy fending off constant threats to her government which emanated from previous allies and remnants of the “New Society”.
Yes, she did liberalized the public sphere, and promoted more democratic space. In so doing, however, she unwittingly or wittingly allowed the re-entry of elitist politics. Those who were marginalized by Marcos came back with a vengeance, and used the “multi-party” system as their entry point.
Cory was credited only with the fact that she revived the damaged careers of pre-Martial law politicians and allowed them to again re-populate the public sphere. It did not occur to Cory that, by not changing the political system, she unwittingly allowed greedy elites to again damage our political institutions.
Failing in that, Cory allowed other elites to share power with her, a costly misapplication of democracy. As these elites gain more power, Cory's power base is diminished. With a diminished power stature, Cory was put into a situation where she can no longer institute drastic changes, especially in more critical areas like economic relations.
Cory failed to change the nature of property and production relations, which were the core solution to the inherent flaw of the Philippine superstructure. She had a chance during the revolutionary government stage of her administration.
One basic flaw that Aquino failed to institute was genuine agrarian reform. Yes, Cory was indeed credited of having prioritized the program, even designated a governmental department to handle agrarian concerns; yet the program was, at best, a half-baked initiative. It was a patchwork program meant to appease both farmers and landlords. Cory was probably afraid of subverting the interests of her class. Her agrarian reform was a convenient accommodation for the landlord class; and not entirely reflective of the true version that could have changed the rural landscape in the most dramatic fashion.
That was a costly mistake because we lost that one chance of really curing the basic and fundamental flaw of the system.
Lastly, Cory also failed to formalize the application of ethical standards in governance. Yes, she did govern with utmost honesty and integrity. Yet, when she failed to streamline the bureaucracy and allowed its growth to continue without first weeding out those parasitic grafters that feed from the oversized belly of the system, Cory promoted the perpetuation of corruption. That was our one chance of reforming the bureaucracy but because of the inability of Cory to do those fundamental and substantive changes, we lost that opportunity.
These are the lessons that Cory gave us. If we, God willing, again tread the revolutionary path, let's do it the right way. Change the fundamental character and nature of our superstructure. There are certain ways on how to do it without costing too much.
My sentiments exactly!
ReplyDeleteFinally! Someone who sees beyond what's obvious.
Good post!