Commentary 2
Title: The Unfinished Revolution in Philippine Political Discourse
Author: Reynaldo C. Ileto
This "Unfinished Revolution" is examined in great length in Reynaldo Ileto's
article, which is once again quite intriguing. The term "revolution" is well-known to
Filipinos because to the so-called EDSA Revolution, which demonstrated to the
country that even the most powerful and ominous entity from the government may be
ousted by "people power." However, is the definition of revolution used by the people
in 1986 the same as the revolution that our predecessors undertook? As a history
teacher, I am aware of the discrepancies between the two, but does the nation's
educational system take steps to resolve this? Or perhaps the education still lacks
motivation to take action. As I read Professor Ileto's paper, I saw how he utilized the
phrase "coup d'etat" to dispel the myth surrounding the EDSA Revolution in the article
and how he framed his essay on the "unfinished revolution" as something other than
its straightforward meaning.
We are completely conscious that the objective of our forefathers' revolt was
to regain the honor for our indigenous heritage that had been lost, while also striving
to gain the independence that had been long-resented to our motherland. In the
paper of Professor Ileto, it displayed that the independence we are holding is not the
real independence that Rizal and the other “heroes” keening for the nation. In my
opinion, this is because Filipinos have not completely gotten rid of the colonial
mentality that was first implanted in the mind of our ancestors that up until now still
visible even in the educational system that our country has. It is “unfinished” because
there are so much of the Filipino mentality is still colonial – still tainted with Spanish
and American accretions.
The word revolution was always used in politics in 1915 up until late 1998,
which even heroes like Rizal and Bonifacio were often used to gain sympathy to win
the heart of the masses during election. I have the same thought with Professor Ileto
that history is more than just stories that describe the past. But a bridge that shows
us the path of lessons embodied from it. Former Presidents like Ramon Magsaysay,
Manuel Quezon, Joseph Estrada, and Ferdinand Marcos Sr. used history particularly
the revolution to supplement their campaigns and won the election. They did this to
burnish their names and further solidify their platforms and eventually end up using
them in their administrations. From the article of Ileto and the point of view of a
“common Filipino,” there is a huge problem in connecting the identity of Rizal as the
National Hero and Bonifacio as the redeemer of our country’s liberties. The moment
where the construction and establishment of the monument of the “Great Plebeian”
Andres Bonifacio took place, the socialist labor and peasant groups had a place where
they could give their opinion about the improper response of the government to the
problems of poor Filipinos in the different parts of the country. However, these
happen twice a year – on May 1 the Labour Day, and on August 26 the Commemoration
of Bonifacio’s “Cry of Balintawak”. Compared to the public attention Jose Rizal's
monument receives, this is a far cry discrepancy between the two monuments as well
as the two well-known heroes of the country. Even though there were politicians who
used the identity of Andres Bonifacio to get the elusive pulse from the common
people, many still do not know his life, his character, and what he really paved off
during the revolution. This eventually reminded me of the book The Revolt of the
Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan of Teodoro Agoncillo, that became
very controversial due to its standpoint about Bonifacio and how it presented the
chicanery and social hypocrisy during the Spanish occupation in the Philippines.
And, for the nationalist and other radicals, Agoncillo was a godsend for this reason
(Ileto 1993).
Besides Agoncillo, Professor Ileto also presented another author, Renato
Constantino who indeed became a shock to many because of his works and radical
lectures about Rizal. For example, on December 30, 1969, at the Third National Rizal
Lecture, Constantino set out to undermine Rizal’s supreme position in the pantheon
of heroes (Ileto 1993). Why is it, he asked, that only in the Philippines is the national
hero is not the leader of the Revolution? And besides he was an American-made hero.
Imbodied the unfinished 1896 revolution led by Andres Bonifacio to the
students. The article presented the radical and rapid pace of student activism in the
Philippines from late 1960s to its peak in 1970-71 period. It is no coincidence that the
most controversial essays of Constantino and Agoncillo were written in 1969 when it
was clear that Marcos, with the U.S. was doing everything just to stay in power. I
perceived this as a solid proof from the paper of Professor Ileto that Marcos Sr. was
really putting himself in power over the state.
Talking about the 1896 Revolution, Agoncillo, Constantino, and others were
addressing the present, and providing the material with which the youth could
organize their experiences of the present (Ileto 1993). This, in my perception flamed
the spirit of the students to revolt against the improper governance of Marcos Sr.
which leads to the demonstration and the bloodshed of the “Battle of Mendiola”. This
scenario brought me back to the “unfinished revolution” of our forefathers against
the oppressors from the Spanish occupation. In my opinion, this revolt from the
radicals (students) served as a window that the struggle for liberty is not yet done.
That even decades ago, the revolution is still alive with those lionhearted individuals
who’s possessing the spirit of the brave Katipuneros of the country. They can throw
caution aside as far as to confront the bullets and get wounded or die for the single
aspiration they want for the country as well to common good.
Days after the “Battle of Mendiola”, tension between the government and the
youthful radicals were incited. Likewise, various “cause-oriented groups” took place
to aid revolts against the dictatorship of the Marcos regime. If not everything, most of
the important events that can be link to the “unfinished revolution” were presented
in the paper of Professor Ileto. Yet, there is one thing that I am certain, the
“unfinished revolution” is still incomplete even though the cause of many revolts in
1970s were met. On my perception, the 1896 revolution will never be finish because
up to this time, there are things that need to be change politically, economically,
socially, for us to have the true liberty that we and our forefathers hoped-for.
