Victim-blaming in the time of Duterte
IN February, 2016, I blogged about the 30th anniversary of the EDSA revolt which toppled the Marcos. As we try to understand how and why Duterte became possible — I’m reiterating here some of those points.
I feel they are relevant responses to some quarters who insist on pinning the blame on “the forgetful Filipino” in a rather disingenuous, a historic manner.
First: The rise of Duterte and the rehabilitation of Marcos, Estrada, and Arroyo are the cumulative results of three decades of impunity.
All the post-EDSA administrations miserably failed to prosecute, punish, and jail not only the Marcoses. Their cronies among Big Business and Big Landlords, and the military/police personnel who terrorized the people clearly evaded justice.
The focus was merely on the sequestration and recovery of Marcos loot, and even the recovered ill-gotten wealth went to Big Landlords because that was what the CARP Law stated. Recovered Marcos wealth would go to the land reform program, specifically to paying Big Landlords for the land they’ve stolen or grabbed in the first place but that they would agree to be redistributed.
Second: The most consequential legal victory over the Marcoses was the landmark class-action suit filed and won by victims led by SELDA in the US federal court. They pursued this suit despite the Philippine government’s refusal to support them and its aversion to it, simply because the people — Marcos victims specifically — would get a share of the recovered loot. The post-EDSA governments didn’t want justice and compensation for the victims.
Today the board tasked to implement the Compensation Law fought for and won by progressive partylist representatives and their allies is headed by a police general. No wonder only about 10,000 claims were approved out of over 70,000 filed claims.
Third: What and how exactly do schools teach students about martial law? Are the students introduced to pro-democracy heroes and martyrs aside from Corazon Aquino, Ninoy Aquino, Jaime Cardinal Sin, and other superstars?
The fact is, there has been no proper history-telling as part of school curricula. What we have is the lionization of few select “icons” and “superheroes,” that at the same time airbrush the role of the people, their organizations and movements, and the broad united front that helped topple Marcos.
(We have to thank the Bantayog ng mga Bayani, a private initiative, for recognizing the heroes who fought the dictatorship. Credit also goes to the Communist Party of the Philippines for naming New People’s Army commands after many red fighters and other revolutionaries who offered their lives in the armed resistance to the rampaging troops.)
The one-sided, limited, partisan and — therefore — weak retelling of the story of the anti-Marcos struggle created a void which historical revisionists slowly but surely took advantage of. Add to this the impunity which allowed the Marcoses to return the country practically unmolested and with support from oligarchs and opportunist politicians.
Fourth: Many vestiges of Marcos remain intact — automatic foreign debt appropriations, “no permit, no rally,” the use of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, the ban on workers’ strikes, labor export policy, militarist response to revolutionary movements, and others.
The flip side of this is the obvious failure to enact democratic measures that benefit the democratic majority. I’m referring here to genuine agrarian reform that would empower the peasant majority and at the same time disempower the few Big Landlords-cum-political dynasties. I’m also referring here to a national industrialization program that would mobilize Filipino industrialists and entrepreneurs eager to transform the economy and create millions of jobs.
Fifth: After the second edition of EDSA, the succeeding president im- mediately granted pardon to the ousted president when he was found guilty of plunder. The grant of pardon was supported by the ruling classes.
Sixth: Instead of a crackdown on corruption at the highest levels, a president later created a presidential pork barrel system.
People sued the government and protested in the streets to demand an end to pork barrel. But top officials went on to invent novel ways to commit plunder, misuse of funds, “porkification” of the national budget, and abuse of power.
Seventh: Post-EDSA regimes openly discouraged the people’s exercise of their democratic rights — even going so far as to claim that the struggle was over. They said the so-called democratic system should be given a chance to work.
The pervasive view that rallies, activism, militancy, and revolution are bad — it is a result of efforts to debase, demonize, and consider unnecessary or anti-progress the exercise or enjoyment of civil, political, human, social, and cultural rights.
Make no mistake: Duterte himself is a product of EDSA. He owes to the people’s uprising his first stint as OIC vice mayor of Davao — the first step in his 30-year voyage from Mindanao to Malacañang. He was part of most, if not all, of the national coalitions that ruled the country, even the Daang Matuwid coalition until he left it in 2015 to wave the banner of change.
What has happened to the elaborate maze of institutions and structures for checks and balance – All of a sudden, they all bowed to Duterte?
We cannot arouse, organize, and mobilize the Filipino people to fight and defeat tyranny if we start by blaming them. The people are in fact the victims of the rotten system that made him and this regime possible. It is forgetful, opportunist, and an expert in shifting blame on its victims.