Violence and Revolution in El Filibusterismo: Rizal’s Shift from Reform to Revolution
Jose Rizal’s El Filibusterismo marks a stark departure from the more hopeful, reformist tone of Noli Me
Tangere. While Noli explores the possibilities of peaceful change within the Spanish colonial system, El
Filibusterismo shifts towards disillusionment, frustration, and ultimately, the advocacy of violent
revolution. This shift is embodied in the transformation of its protagonist—Crisóstomo Ibarra, the
idealistic reformer of Noli Me Tangere, re-emerges as Simoun, a vengeful figure bent on destruction.
Rizal’s portrayal of revolution in El Filibusterismo reflects his own evolving political stance, showing his
growing skepticism toward the possibility of reform under Spanish rule.
From Reformist Idealism to Revolutionary Despair
Ibarra’s Initial Faith in Reform
In Noli Me Tangere, Ibarra represents the educated Creole who believes in working within the colonial
system to bring about progress. His attempts to establish a school symbolize his belief that education
and enlightenment can elevate Filipino society. He does not initially seek to overthrow Spanish rule;
instead, he envisions a society where Filipinos and Spaniards can coexist under a just and fair system.
However, the colonial authorities—particularly the friars—interpret his efforts as a threat. Instead of
supporting his reforms, they conspire against him, falsely accuse him of rebellion, and ultimately drive
him into exile. The betrayal and persecution Ibarra suffers make it clear that the Spanish government is
unwilling to accommodate even moderate change. His downfall signals the failure of the reformist
approach.
Simoun and the Turn to Violence
By the time El Filibusterismo begins, Ibarra has completely abandoned his previous ideals. As Simoun, he
has returned under a new identity—this time, not as a reformer but as a conspirator seeking the violent
overthrow of Spanish rule. Unlike Ibarra, who once believed in gradual change, Simoun now sees
destruction as the only path to liberation.
Simoun’s approach mirrors that of revolutionary movements:
• Instead of building schools, he plans bombings and assassinations.
• Instead of appealing to reason, he manipulates anger and resentment.
• Instead of working for gradual reform, he seeks immediate and total upheaval.
His grand plan involves orchestrating an uprising by encouraging the oppressed Filipino masses to rise up
and fight against their Spanish rulers. However, his plan ultimately fails—like Ibarra’s earlier attempts at
reform—suggesting that Rizal saw both peaceful and violent approaches as flawed under colonial rule.
What This Shift Says About Rizal’s Changing Political Views
Rizal’s shift from the reformist ideals of Noli Me Tangere to the revolutionary tone of El Filibusterismo
reflects his own growing frustrations with Spain’s refusal to enact meaningful changes.
1. Disillusionment with Spanish Reform
Rizal, like Ibarra, initially believed in reform. He wrote Noli Me Tangere in the hope that Spain might
recognize the injustices of its rule and grant Filipinos more rights. However, after its publication, Rizal
saw that the Spanish authorities were unwilling to listen. Instead of responding with reforms, they
branded him a traitor, banned his book, and increased repression in the Philippines.
This growing frustration is mirrored in El Filibusterismo, where reform is no longer an option. The novel
suggests that the Spanish government’s refusal to change is pushing Filipinos toward revolution. By
making Simoun a tragic character, Rizal warns that if oppression continues, violent uprisings will become
inevitable.
2. The Failure of Violence as a Solution
Despite his turn toward revolution, Rizal does not present Simoun’s path as a triumphant one. Simoun’s
plans ultimately collapse, and his violent methods fail to achieve real change. His death, full of regret and
despair, suggests that while Rizal understood why revolutionaries might resort to violence, he also feared
the consequences of a bloody uprising.
This aligns with Rizal’s real-life views. Though he sympathized with the Filipino struggle, he did not
advocate for an all-out revolution like Andrés Bonifacio and the Katipunan later did. Instead, Rizal sought
Filipino self-determination through education and political advocacy. El Filibusterismo reflects this
internal conflict—Rizal acknowledges the need for radical change but also questions whether violence is
the right path.
3. The Cycle of Oppression and Resistance
Both Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo show how the Spanish colonial system creates a vicious cycle:
• Reformers like Ibarra are seen as threats and suppressed.
• This suppression breeds resentment, leading to radicalization, as seen with Simoun.
• Revolutionary attempts are crushed, leading to more oppression.
By illustrating this cycle, Rizal warns that Spain’s refusal to reform will only increase Filipino resistance.
His novels predict that if things continue as they are, the Philippines will eventually reach a breaking
point.
Conclusion: Rizal’s Political Evolution in His Novels
Rizal’s shift from Noli Me Tangere to El Filibusterismo mirrors his own political awakening. While he once
believed that the Spanish government could be persuaded to grant reforms, he later saw that oppression
would continue unless Filipinos took action. Simoun’s story serves as both a reflection of this realization
and a warning about the dangers of violent revolution.
Rather than presenting a simple solution, Rizal leaves his readers with difficult questions:
• Can true change come from working within an oppressive system?
• Is violent revolution the only alternative when peaceful reform fails?
• How can a people achieve liberation without falling into further cycles of bloodshed and
tyranny?
By refusing to give easy answers, Rizal’s novels remain relevant today. They challenge us to think critically
about power, resistance, and the costs of both action and inaction.
