Over the last few weeks, a series of videos have appeared on YouTube advertising itself as facts about Marcos and Aquino they didn’t want you to know. The disclaimer that accompanies it says the videos are not meant to be Marcos propaganda, they are meant only to establish the truths of history.
But of course they’re meant to be Marcos propaganda. Specifically, they’re meant to sow doubts about the essential truths of history, thereby allowing a rewriting of it. Thereby allowing Marcos to be buried in Libingan ng mga Bayani. Thereby turning him into the most maligned hero on the face of this earth.
The one I saw had several propositions. One was that Ninoy Aquino and Ferdinand Marcos were the best of friends and it was Ferdinand rather than Ninoy who got the short end of the bargain. Ferdinand never stopped Ninoy from getting medical treatment abroad, as sublime a show of magnanimity as you can get. Edsa turned out to be peaceful for the simple reason that Marcos never had any intention of shedding blood. He issued stern orders to the soldiers not to fire on the protesters.
Cory never led that revolution, she was in Cebu all the time. And life did not get better afterward, it got worse. Rice and oil never soared to astronomical highs during Marcos’ time, they did during Cory’s. And society was far more democratic during Marcos’ time, the poor at least got a better deal. The democracy Cory restored was merely the democracy of the oligarchs and their secret allies, the communists.
I understand there are several more videos along these lines, variations on the theme. The method is not unlike the one Barack Obama employed to get to the White House three years ago, intensive use of the social media to get a message across. The obvious limitation of it in this country is that we do not have an extensive online reach; the traditional media, particularly free TV, still define what’s called the “public discourse.” Or they still have the most powerful impact on the public mind. But the videos are clearly aiming for the young middle class urban dwellers who are computer-savvy in hopes of getting them if not to lead the charge in the rewriting of history at least to be the least resistant to it.
The video I saw is a classic in exploiting half-truths. Or specifically in how to wring a different spin from bald facts.
The proposition that Ninoy and Ferdinand were buddies is just plain false. Of course they knew each other, they were politicians of the old school. But Ninoy matured politically in adversity, Ferdinand retrogressed, or became more tyrannical, in prosperity. What choice did Marcos have but to allow Ninoy to seek medical treatment abroad? He needed continued American blessings for martial law, which he wasn’t getting with the Carter administration. Indeed, he was getting a pummeling with that administration, which was big on human rights. It was only later that he would get back into the good graces of America with the Reagan win.
Of course Marcos eventually ordered his men to stand down. What choice did he have too? Paul Laxalt put it to him in ways that left no room for doubt: “Cut, and cut cleanly.” His rule was over, he could not count on American support to prop it up. If he made a mess of things, he could not count on American asylum. If he left a carnage in his wake, he could not count on an American rescue. It was not generosity that made Marcos hold back, it was calculation. If he had blown the mutineers to bits, if he had shot down the marchers, he would have lost anyway—the Americans were deeply worried about the other revolution, the one taking place in the countryside—and nothing could have saved him and his family from suffering the fate of Mussolini.
Of course Cory was in Cebu, her followers had brought her there for her protection after the snap elections. That did not mean she did not lead it, in spirit if not in the flesh. The people did not turn out for Juan Ponce Enrile, Fidel Ramos and Gringo Honasan, they did so for Cory. That was the reason none of the three managed to head the government afterward notwithstanding that they tried to again and again. Cory led Edsa even without physically being there in ways that resembled Delacroix’s painting of Liberty Leading the People.
Of course life seemed much better at least during the 1970s and early 1980s. That is truly the most deceptive thing of all. That was paid for by the billions upon billions Marcos borrowed, which we paid for with our forests and seas, the bulk of which Marcos and his cronies stole anyway. That was the one thing that guaranteed the bitter harvest afterward. It began to unravel toward the last few years of Marcos’ rule, which compelled him to rely on the “Binondo Central Bank.” That was what guaranteed our doom afterward, or our conversion from being one of the brightest to the one of the wretched-est countries of the world.
Of course the democracy that Cory brought back was the flawed democracy of pre-martial law years. But the difference between that and martial law is the difference between heaven and hell.
“Can this be true?” a young man asked me after he watched the video. The fact that that question can be asked is enough to ring alarm bells in my head. The difference between 1986 and 2011, which is how long Edsa has been, is the difference between 1940 and 1965, the difference between the World War II and the Beatles. Martial law is even longer. Enough to try the memory of this memory-challenged country. It is a challenge to—no, a demand upon—the older generation, the ones who hold the institutional memory of the country, to dredge the past and leave a cautionary tale in their wake.
Senility, whether in a person or in a country, is the saddest thing to behold.