THE POWER TO NAME
aNYONe who travels by air knows that airports have names, and many of them are named after persons and not the city or the country where they are located. Thus, our airport is named the Ninoy aquino International airport (NaIa) and not the Philippine International airport. While many domestic terminals in the provinces are named after their location, some are named after persons like the Francisco Bangoy International airport in Davao city or the Daniel Z. Romualdez airport in Tacloban city.
Of the 10 member countries of the association of Southeast asian Nations, only Brunei International airport carries the country’s name. Some are named after their major cities like Yangon International airport in Myanmar, Phnom Penh International airport in cambodia and Kuala lumpur International airport in Malaysia. Most are named after places like Suvarnabhumi International airport in Thailand, Tan Son Nhat and Noi Bai International airports in Vietnam, changi International airport in Singapore, and Wattay International airport in laos. The old airport in Bangkok was initially named the Bangkok International airport but subsequently became known as the Don Mueang International airport.
It is not uncommon to name airports after persons. Indonesia’s main airport is the Soekarno-Hatta
International airport, named after the first president and vice president of the independent Republic of Indonesia, Soekarno and Mohammad Hatta. a second airport is the Halim Perdanakusuma International airport, which is named after a famed aviator and air vice-marshal.
Outside asean, we have the charles de Gaulle International airport in Paris named after the 18th president of the French Republic, the John F. Kennedy International airport in New York city named after the 35th president of the United States, the Indira Gandhi International airport in New Delhi named after the first woman prime minister of India, and the Ben Gurion International airport named after Israel’s first prime minister, among others. Many local and domestic airports, as well as regional international airports are also named after persons, like the Daniel K. Inouye International airport in Honolulu named after the longestserving US senator from Hawaii.
The process of naming not only airports but public places, and even institutions, and the putting up of monuments, has always been part of the symbolic rituals for nationbuilding. This is precisely why an examination of the examples enumerated above reveals the pattern of naming airports after persons who played a role in history, as important figures in the narratives of building the nation, or the political community. every political community, from a small village to a nation, is engaged in this project of edification to celebrate not only its past, but to cement its present and its future.
controversies arise simply because the process of writing history and the narratives of nation-building is a contested terrain, but where the victorious acquires the power to write them. Together with this is the power to assign symbols and to decide not only whose stories would be preferred, but also whose names will be edified. But in countries with a less fractious history, or where national narratives are fairly settled, the naming of edifices, including airports, is no longer contentious. It is only when national narratives are contested, brought about by major shifts in the political landscape that the name of landmarks become contentious.
When the late President Ferdinand Marcos was ousted, the victors who vanquished him moved to erase his political footprints, including his symbolic legacies. at the same time, they moved to establish their own naming rights, one of which was the renaming of the then Manila
International airport into NaIa. The move was not without symbolic warrant, as Benigno “Ninoy” aquino Jr. was considered a symbol of the narrative of the post-Marcos Philippines, and naming after him the airport on which tarmac he fell and died, was but an appropriate tribute.
However, our national narrative is far from being settled, as there are those who contest the edification of the aquino brand, and who happen to bear a contravening narrative that is the confluence of the remnants of the Marcos brand and the now dominant Duterte loyal base. This is something that is not unique to the Philippines. The current contentious debates in the US surrounding the monuments of the confederate generals have taken center stage as the US is now confronting racial divisions, where liberal forces are ranged against the right-wing Trump followers who seek to edify the confederacy that fought the Union to keep the institution of slavery.
The move to change the name of NaIa is now being cast as a move to promote nationalism, effectively appropriating the Filipino language and the name “Pilipinas” as linguistic devices to justify the move. It is simply absurd to claim that changing the name of NaIa to Paliparang Pandaigdigan ng Pilipinas will
bring back a sense of national pride simply because it is in Filipino and the name of the country is mentioned. As pointed above, it is not uncommon that the name of the country does not appear in the official name of an airport. And it doesn’t make their citizens any less nationalistic just because their major airports bear names that do not contain any reference to the countries.
It is strange because the proponents of the measure would have better served the nationalist cause had they filed a bill for the intellectualization of Filipino as a medium of instruction and an official language. In the end, we have to realize that changing the name of NAIA to Paliparang Pandaigdig ng Pilipinas is not about nationalism. It is also not about a symbolic affirmation of the Filipino language. It is nothing but a move to take down the Aquino legacy, as a phase in the ongoing saga of a divided sense of nationhood, and the endless contestations between warring political camps.
In short, it is not about nationalism. It is vengeance by the victors asserting their power to name.