Political closure
in 1986. History is weaponized by the elites who benefit from its hijacking. Dominant narratives are told not to complete the story, but to weave convenient tales that would be safe for these elite interests. The complete story is replaced by focusing on the evils of one particular family, and one particular period if only to justify a convenient landscape of simulated truths. Cory Aquino did not just sequester the assets of Marcos and his cronies. She, through the actions of her apologists and dedicated story-tellers, also sequestered history, and then inoculated it by labeling as historical revisionism any attempt to recover from it the fair, complete and balanced narratives.
One of the biggest stories that remain to be told is who really ordered the assassination of Ninoy Aquino. The convenient narrative is that it was ordered by Marcos himself, or that it was Imelda Marcos, or even Gen. Fabian Ver. But there are many loose ends to this version of the story. For one, Marcos, who was already ill at the time, was not stupid enough to order the assassination knowing fully well that it would be blamed on him.
Cory Aquino had revolutionary
presidency. She was in the best position to order a reinvestigation to once and for all determine the real story behind her husband’s assassination. She came into power as a grieving widow demanding justice for her slain husband, but she
the relevant organs of the state to inquire into his death.
Indeed, the most convenient narrative is to keep on believing that the Marcoses were behind the assassination of Ninoy Aquino. This is the only narrative that could
image as a hero. Any other narrative would necessarily dilute the heroic nature of his death.
Alternative stories abound, with conspiracy theorists offering a plethora of narratives, from the plausible to the incredible. I have heard one story that the assassination plot was allegedly designed only to wound, and not to kill, perhaps to increase the value of the political optics of an attempt on the life of a returning opposition leader. There is another story line being woven by people who believe that it was actually a relative who ordered the assassination. If any of these stories are true, then Ninoy’s heroism will be negated because the cause of his death would no longer be in the hands of an alleged dictator, but as an accidental death from an allegedly staged assassination attempt, or that he died as a victim of political fratricide to advance clan interests.
All of these stories will continue to fester, and will be entertained by those who are not convinced of the official narrative. What raises the suspicion is the refusal of Cory Aquino, and later of her son Noynoy Aquino, to reopen the investigation into the assassination of Ninoy.
On the balance, the Marcos side of our political history has already been over-exposed to a point that this has even become income-generating endeavors for many resourceful journalists and scholars. It is the Aquino side that contains so many hanging narratives comprising of secrets, untold stories and unresolved allegations. In addition to queries about the real story behind the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, many are also asking what the real story is behind the Plaza Miranda bombing, and if there is truth to the allegation that Ninoy had something to do with it. Bam Aquino talks about closure. The stories on the Ninoy Aquino assassination and the Plaza Miranda bombing are just two of the many stories in our political past that remain open and that need closure.
Bam Aquino must demand closure not only on the Marcos narrative, but also on the Aquino narrative. We need that closure, lest a cloud of doubt remains hanging, particularly over the heroism of his uncle.