US Capitol insurrection happened here 20 years ago
AS the United States ushered in a new Biden administration last January 20, the media showed the magnitude of the work that lay ahead for the new president of unifying a divided nation with the repeated playing of scenes of what happened just two weeks ago at the US Capitol, of people storming it believing in their heart of hearts that they were staging a revolution to fight for their uncounted votes, urged on earlier by the then president Donald Trump for them to march to the Capitol and show strength in his usual, unsurprising bravado.
But what happened was an attempt to disrupt a functioning democratic process for the sake of one man. A coup by the executive against the legislature. As the smoke cleared, those who stormed the Capitol were called a mob and their act, an insurrection.
When we look at history, it is so easy to identify what were mere rebellions and what were revolutions. Usually, those that came to be called revolutions were the ones that won. Because history is written from the perspective of those in the new era, especially if most of the people, although they did not all participate, concurred. Those that did not achieve their political goals were called rebellions, or insurrections — Tapar, Sumuroy, Silang, Sakdal, the Moro rebellion, the RAM coups, the Oakwood mutiny and the Manila Peninsula siege.
It is actually extremely hard to identify that a resistance is actually a revolution at the moment that it is happening. If José Rizal knew that years after, Bonifacio’s plan to revolt would be called the Philippine Revolution of 1896, would he have refused Pio Valenzuela’s offer for him to become president of the Katipunan? He was not against the idea of violently revolting but wanted to wait for the right time and circumstances.
Although some people contend that EDSA ‘ 86 was not a revolution, many historians now view the four-day uprising as a culmination of the real People Power Revolution — a protracted struggle against tyranny which was not necessarily peaceful, but bloody and full of suffering. The struggle’s anti- tyrannical spirit which upheld democracy and human rights was overwhelmingly concurred in by 77.04 percent of those who voted in 1987 to ratify a new Constitution.
Therefore, one should know enough to join only a revolution which is made of all the right elements. But of course, that is easier said than done.
Last Jan. 20, 2021 was the milestone 20th anniversary of the EDSA 2 revolt which happened from Jan. 16- 20, 2001, which ousted then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and replaced him with his vice president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. It made me review my typewritten diaries when I had just turned 16 years old ( January19 is my birthday). Rereading what I wrote about the reaction of the Estrada supporters when he was arrested as they massed at the EDSA Shrine, answering EDSA 2 with EDSA Tres, felt chilling because apparently what happened in the US Capitol two weeks ago had the same feel as what happened here 20 years ago.
During the last years of her life, the late senator Miriam Defensor Santiago redeemed her image with the younger generation with her hugot lines. Since 2004, I consistently voted for her for senator because I felt she was indispensable in the process of crafting laws, despite being uncomfortable with some of her political alliances. But in 2001, my diary reflected my irritation at her for supporting Estrada in his impeachment trial. During the EDSA Tres rally, she made a fiery speech and told the people about marching to oust President Arroyo. I wrote what she said, “Kung sa akin lang, handa na ako. Ang tanong, handa ba kayo? Kailan pa kung hindi ngayon?” In another speech, the ageless Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile urged the crowd, “Papaligiran natin ang Malacañang ng libo-libong tao!” Of course, that was just bravado.
But we all knew how that ended. When the Iglesia ni Cristo pulled the plug on the rally’s Net 25 coverage in the wee hours of May 1, 2001, the pro-Erap supporters were at the very gates of Malacañang
and a bloody confrontation ensued. When the dust settled, I wrote, “Again the question: Where are the leaders? …It was they who convinced the crowd at EDSA to attack Mendiola. Did these cowards join the masses in the attack? My God! These politicians turned the masses into pawns to fulfill their personal agenda. Where were they when their supporters became wounded and in pain? … Looking at those arrested pleading for freedom; I feel not hatred but pity. The masses were again used by hungry-for-power politicians.”
The grievances of the poor and their feelings were real, but those that led them could be described in the same way that Ibarra was described by Rizal — “an egoist who only decided to provoke the rebellion when he was hurt in his interests, his person, his loves and all the other things he held sacred. With men like him, success cannot be expected in their undertakings.”