In the days and weeks leading up to EDSA I in 1986, Corazon Aquino had already become for Filipinos a well-known figure and an iconic one as well. Indeed, her public and private persona could have been destined early on for memorialization while her nemesis Ferdinand Marcos remained stubbornly in office refusing to leave even as his world would soon come crashing down upon him.
Naysayers expressed doubts that Aquino could present a true and legitimate challenge to the seemingly-indissoluble Marcos. How, they wondered, could the proverbial housewife possibly supplant the powerful dictator. It was seen as a David-versus-Goliath battle, an improbable struggle for the hearts and minds---and the votes---of the Filipino people.
At first, Corazon Aquino wasn’t the ideal candidate to unseat Marcos. Her utter lack of political experience and her docile disposition was enough to sow anxiety amongst the most empathetic of her supporters. But armed with her Roman Catholic faith and the aggrieved memory of a devastated but unbowed widow, Aquino proved she could hold her own against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and those of a distinct period of inflection in post-independence Philippine history.
Aquino in due course solidified her position as the principal driving force of the Marcos resistance and as the symbol of democratic renewal in the Philippines. She was the one Filipino oppositionist with the spiritual gravitas, the social grace, and the moral high ground to resonate with the freedom-starved Filipino masses. In short, Corazon Aquino was the optimal, if not the only, candidate to beat Ferdinand Marcos.
Still the question had to be asked, how well could Aquino run the country in the event Marcos was dispatched? Her governing abilities were not entirely evident in the leadup to both the snap presidential election and the ensuing People Power movement in February of 1986. Aquino proved she could talk a good game, but could she back it up with deeds when her turn at the helm was called? It is an axiom of political change the world over: it’s one thing to come to power, another to administer it wisely. So it was only prudent to speculate whether Aquino was up to the task, the task of being a profoundly transformative and efficacious president.
Cory Aquino’s partisans came up with an expedient conclusion on her presidential qualifications or lack thereof---the number one priority was to get rid of Ferdinand Marcos. Essentially they would worry about how to manage an Aquino presidency afterwards. This was short-sighted perhaps, but removing Marcos took the highest precedence.
It so happens that some thirty-four years later, the Democratic Party in the United States faces a decision that is to some degree analogous to what the Filipino oppositionists to Ferdinand Marcos were confronted with in 1986. In this case, should the Dems back a progressive nominee whose more radical platform may unsettle leery swing voters and thereby risk scuttling the chances for victory against Donald Trump in November? Or should they make their standard-bearer a more familiar, traditional, and moderate candidate who will be more prone to making political compromises but also be more likely to prevent a second Trump term?
This is not to say that there’s no way a left-leaning Democratic candidate cannot win a general election. However, such a candidate’s views have provoked a variety of inauspicious reactions from critical uncommitted voters and the party leadership, reactions ranging from skepticism to apprehension. Subsequently, Democratic chieftains are desperately searching for a middle ground candidate savvy enough to close the progressive/pragmatic divide currently roiling their party. But can they do so in spite of the galvanized centrifugal socio-political forces within their ranks?
In looking back at Corazon Aquino’s breathtaking rise to the Philippine presidency, we have been able to put together a complete picture of what her political track record ended up being. In hindsight, Aquino’s performance as the first post-Marcos president had mixed results. That is I must say, being very charitable.
From ducking multiple coup attempts to lacking a broadminded national vision to failing to alleviate poverty appreciably and implement deep-seated reforms, Aquino was, as Philippine columnist Luis Beltran said about her, “sincere, moral and honest, but the presidency [was] obviously beyond her, beyond her capabilities, beyond her experience.”
Bringing back Philippine democracy was an admirable historical achievement. But when it came to practical on-the-ground matters of tremendous importance for millions of Filipinos, Aquino fell terribly short. The Philippines was scarcely better off when she left office than when she first entered it.
So is it fair to criticize Aquino’s enthusiasts for turning a blind eye to her flaws and weaknesses in advance of her ascension to power? Or should the successful consummation of the intense struggle to chase Marcos out of Malacanang Palace have necessarily overriden those longer-term concerns?
Should the Democratic Party nominate a “safer” pragmatist/centrist or a chancy ideological radical? Which Democratic contender has the higher odds of bouncing Donald Trump from the White House?
It’s a perplexing decision either way to be sure for there probably is no right or wrong here. One can rationalize a way forward with either path. As for the Aquino devotees, they made their choice for what I believe was for the benefit of the Filipino people as Marcos was toppled. The six-year aftermath that followed can be debated and justifiably castigated but I’m certain that without Cory Aquino the alternative would have been far worse.
One can only shudder at contemplating what a post-1986 Marcos dictatorship of indefinite duration would have brought about for the Philippines. Or what a similar incumbency of Donald Trump would do to the United States.
ALLEN GABORRO
Comments
Post a Comment