A Gandhian Understanding of the February Philippine People Power Uprising

A Gandhian Understanding of the February People Power Uprising

1.      Introduction

Was it really people power which played the decisive role in ending the Marcos dictatorship? Can active non-violence under certain circumstances be an effective mode of struggle against all oppressive government?

Some sectors of the Philippines left, together with the Marcos Loyalists claim that it was U.S. intervention which brought about the ouster of Marcos. This is exactly the line taken by U.S. officials. In statements of self-congratulations after the uprising, they boasted that the removal of Marcos was a “‘triumph of the U.S. diplomacy’, ‘the fruit of 2 years of strategy’.” Others attribute the disgraceful exit of Marcos to the Enrile-Ramos-led military uprising. If there had been no military uprising, Cory Aquino they say, there would not have been elevated to the highest post in the land.

While recognising the roles played by the U.S., the Enrile-Ramos military faction and others, the facts show, that the most important force which decided the fate of Marcos was no other than people power. While victory was reaped at EDSA, we must not forget however that the people’s anti-dictatorship struggles date as far back as the 60’s, continuing even during the height of the dictatorship’s reign of terror. People power was the driving force not only in the numerous protest actions held in Metro-Manila and other Philippine urban centers but also in the armed struggles which were waged and until now continue to be waged in the countryside.

2.      A non-violent uprising

While violence was also used in February, 1986 against Marcos and his loyalist soldiers, as evidenced by the armed clashes near the TV stations and the bombings of Malacañang and Villamor Air Base, the February people power uprising was essentially non-violent in character. Active non-violence, was the primary mode of struggle used and the form of resistance which ensured the people’s victory over the dictatorship. This can be attributed to the influences of Senator Benigno Aquino, the post-Aquino assassination protest actions, the Philippine Church and most concretely, the civil disobedience campaign launched by Cory Aquino. And what is common to all of them? It is the faith in the power of active non-violence.

It is with this faith that Senator Aquino returned to our country in 1983, notwithstanding the threats to his life. This is evident in the arrival statement which he failed to read on account of his premature death by assassination. It says. “I have returned on my own free will to join the ranks of those struggling to restore our rights and freedoms through non-violence.”

It is this faith which emboldened the Philippine bishops to condemn the 1986 snap elections as “unparalleled in the fraudulence of its conduct” and to call on the people to stand up against the immoral Marcos regime by means of non-violent struggle, meaning “active resistance to evil by peaceful means.” It is with this similar faith that Cory Aquino despite having been cheated by the dictator’s most powerful machinery of deceit and terrorism has dared launch a people’s campaign of civil disobedience. This campaign which initially consisted of the boycott of crony or government-controlled banks, crony media and corporations, etc., has for its basis the conviction that even without using physical force, Marcos can be forced out of office.

3.      Why just an uprising

That people’s victory in 1986, sad to say, proved to be but short-lived. The Cory government which the people had brought to power through an uprising, instead of realizing the people’s aspirations for genuine social transformation, opted to continue the policies of the old regime and added new ones, the effect of which is the perpetuation of the present unjust and exploitative social order, which condemn the majority of our people to a life of dehumanizing poverty and oppression.

Sadly, EDSA did not turn out to be the revolution it was labelled to be, but just one of those uprisings as we the people continue in our struggle for genuine revolution: the transformation of our society into one which shall equitably distribute the wealth of our nation and empower of the people, one which will give genuine prosperity, freedom and happiness for all.

Because of this grand betrayal committed by the Cory government against the people, some of us today would rather forget what happened in February, 1986. Yet to do so, is to deny ourselves of the valuable lessons which could be learned from those events. One of these is that oppressive regimes like the Marcos dictatorship, under certain circumstances, may be brought down through non-violent means.

4.      Understanding the February uprising

How can that be done by people power, non-violent people power? Where does its power lie? The developments which the events took in February, 1986 and the success of active non-violence in ousting Marcos was never foreseen by some members of the Philippine left. Guided by Marxist social analysis, they consistently held to just one conclusion: Marcos can only be removed through armed struggle. While this might have been true during the early days of the dictatorship, the circumstances in 1986 were substantially different. As shown by the success of the February people power uprising, by then it was already possible to remove Marcos through active non-violence.

To understand the February people power uprising, we need a theory of political power which takes into consideration forces other than the force of arms. This can be supplied by Gandhian philosophy. It is in the light of this philosophy that the questions earlier mentioned shall be answered. While favorable circumstances were important in allowing non-violent struggle to succeed in 1986, its success is not just a matter of the accidental confluence of events. For the events were in fact consciously being shaped by people who were precisely guided by this philosophy- Gandhi’s philosophy of active non-violence. This is most evident in the campaign of civil disobedience and the concrete actions which were taken during the EDSA uprising itself. To see the distinct features of this philosophy, let us contrast it with the views of the proponents of armed resistance.

5.      The Marxist theory of political power.

Following Marxist philosophy, the proponents of armed struggle argue that the present unjust and exploitative social order which keeps the majority of our people in dehumanizing poverty and oppression is preserved by means of violence. This is the organized violence embodied in the state, the instrument of repression of the ruling class, the class in control of the nation’s wealth and which holds political power in our country. This state in the words of Lenin is “an organ of class domination, an organ of oppression…”, “an organization of the exploiting class… for the forcible holding down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression.”

And what mainly consists this power called the state? “It consists” says Lenin, “of special bodies of armed men who have at their disposal prisons, etc….” Particularly, its chief instruments are a standing army and police. Thus the ruling class in the view of Marxists is able to exercise control and dominance over the people, because it is armed. Conversely, the people are powerless because they are unarmed.

6.      Argument for armed struggle

This class which benefits from the status quo expectedly will exert every effort and use every means within its reach to perpetuate the unjust and exploitative social order from which it enjoys a special position of wealth and power. It will never give up its privileges peacefully, that is, without a violent struggle. Hence “it is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible, not only without violent revolution but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power, which was created by the ruling class…” Liberation can only be attained, if the oppressed unite and overcome the prevailing violence of the oppressor with the counter violence of an armed revolution.

That the state is indeed an instrument of repression of the ruling class is amply supported not only by the behaviour of the fascist Marcos dictatorship, but also by that of the present Cory government, which has not hesitated to use armed force to suppress even the peaceful protest actions of the people.

7.      Its view of parliamentary struggle

What about parliamentary struggle? Is it not possible for the oppressed majority to capture political power through elections? This to them is but an illusion. “Contrary to the liberal lie that a ‘poor boy can become president’”, says Amado Guerrero, a leading Filipino Marxist ideologue, “no one has even reached the rank of even a Congressman without representing the exploiting classes and without in the process joining them.”

Indeed to win elections one must either have money or be financially supported by the elite. Under such circumstances, the masses can only choose between candidates of the elite. Election after election, they are given false hopes of liberation from their wretched condition. Yet only faces change. For there is no significant difference in programme between the candidates of these political parties of the elite, both benefiting from the status quo and thus for its preservation. Their only conflict is one of personal interest, i.e. gaining political power in order to obtain greater affluence. “There is so much muckraking between these two reactionary parties, especially on the issue of graft and corruption. But mutually they avoid bringing up the fundamental issues involving the foreign and feudal domination over the country.”

8.      Criticism of pacifism

As opposed to the fascist violence of the ruling class which is intended to maintain the exploitative status quo, the Marxist opts for revolutionary violence as a means of transforming society; not because they are men of violence, but because the concrete social conditions point to them no other way of achieving genuine peace, a peace which is based on justice. If he could, says Felix Greene.

The revolutionary would change society not with guns but with words, with discussion, with persuasion. But the revolutionary is a realist and he knows that history cannot demonstrate a single instance where those who hold positions of power and privilege have given up their position peacefully. The revolutionary uses violence only to destroy a social order which does not any longer allow men to be human to each other.

Criticising the non-violence of pacifism which is equivalent to non-resistance, Greene points out that “submission to violence does not end violence it acquiesces in it… it is very difficult to find instances where violence has ceased because pity has been aroused by the helplessness of the victim, while history records thousands of cases where the defencelessness of a people is precisely why they have been attacked.”

9.      Complicity with structural violence

           

To remain non-violent in this manner, on the contrary, is to allow oneself to become “a partner of violence by allowing it to continue in a non-physical form.” Indeed, violence is not only physical but structural. This is the violence of the unjust social order which by concentrating the wealth of this nation in the hands of a few, force the majority of our people to remain hungry, sick, malnourished, gradually bringing death not only to their bodies but to their dreams, hopes and aspirations as well. This is the violence of the unjust social order which by concentrating the wealth of this nation in the hands of a few, force the majority of our people to remain hungry, sick, malnourished, gradually bringing death not only to their bodies but to their dreams hopes and aspirations as well. This is the violence of unjust social structures which condemn “about 30 million out of the country’s 56 million population (to) live in absolute poverty, in the sense of having an income that did not enable them to satisfy basic needs.”

Violence thus is inescapable, “we are either accomplices in the violence of the status quo or we join the ranks of those who are, if necessary, ready to use violence to overthrow it.”

10.  Non-violence is active, not passive

Is Gandhi’s non-violence the same as the non-violence of pacifism? A person is non-violent if he refrains or does not use physical force. But does this mean non-resistance and submission to the violent status quo? Does non-violence call on us to remain helpless and defenceless in the face of an unjust aggressor and thus be accomplices to our own oppression and exploitation? Certainly, this is not the non-violence of Gandhi or Senator Benigno Aquino. For their non-violence is active and not passive; not non-resistance but a mode of struggle against injustice.

Gandhi points out that “no man could be actually non-violent as I understand it is the most active force in the world.” Gandhi recounts how the people of a certain village misunderstood his teachings when they ran away while the police were looting their houses and molesting their womenfolk. Non-violence, he clarified to them, does not mean running away from the enemy.

11.  Justified violence

If the choice be only between cowardice and violence, Gandhi unequivocally advices the use of violence. “Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence? I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.” “I would risk violence a thousand times than the emasculation of the whole race.”

Under certain circumstances, he believes that violence is justified as an act of self-defence. If a woman for instance is attacked, “her primary duty is self-protection. She is at liberty to employ every method or means that comes to her mind in order to defend her honour…” He views this violence as a duty. Thus, when one of his sons asked him what he should have done, were he present when his father was fatally attacked in 1908, Gandhi replied that it was his duty to defend him, even to the extent of using violence. Applying this situation to himself, he said that if he, an old, decrepit and toothless man remained a helpless witness to an assault… his “so-called Mahatmaship, would be ridiculed, dishonoured and lost…”

In 1942, in a climactic speech in Bombay, he explicitly applied this analogy of self-defence to the Indian freedom struggle, “adding British rule to the list of criminal assailants against whom the use of violence in self-defence was permissible.” Gandhi thus differs from those who a priori held that active non-violence is the only morally permissible form of resistance, or that violence in any form is morally wrong. In the new state of liberated India, he even sees the use of violence as a necessity for the state’s survival, to put down criminal disobedience. Gandhi differs likewise from those who issue calls for peace and non-violence, yet remain silent and do nothing against an oppressive government which preserves an unjust social order. As Alice Guillermo has pointed out, this posture of non- violence “betrays an essential bias: while it overlooks or condones the institutionalized violence of the ruling elite to safeguard its interests, it condemns the violence which arises from the masses defending themselves against injustice.”

12.  The Gandhian theory of political power

Despite this view which favour the use of violence, why did Gandhi personally opt for active non-violence and urged the Indian nation to follow this mode of struggle? What is this non-violence which he asserts is the most active force in the world? The answer lies in his theory of political power. Unlike the Marxist which considers physical might as the main basis of political power, Gandhi believes that the ruler’s power to control and dominate over the people ultimately depends on the latter’s consent and cooperation. Referring to British Colonial Rule over India, he said:

            It is my certain conviction that no man loses his freedom, except through his own weakness. It is not much British guns that are responsible for our subjection as our voluntary cooperation. Even the most despotic government cannot  stand  except  for  the  consent  of  the  governed  which  consent is often forcibly procured by the despot.

The people are powerless, not because they are unarmed, but because of their own weakness, they allow themselves to be terrorized, this is similar to what Rizal said regarding our subjection to Spanish rule-“there are no tyrants if there are no slaves.”

13.  Obedience is not inevitable

If indeed this be the case, does this not precisely prove the necessity of using violence? For in the face of physical force and the threat of sanctions, are we not compelled to obey out of fear? And to overcome this fear, should we not ourselves be armed and thus obtain the capacity to strike back and to defend ourselves? Is obedience inevitable?

While it is true that men sometimes are forced to obey because of fear, this obedience is not always inevitable, one wherein our freedom of choice is totally destroyed. Some may obey or cooperate, not because they have no freedom to disobey at all, but because they are unwilling to face the injurious consequences of their refusal to obey.

Men can disobey, notwithstanding the risks of obedience. As Gene Sharp has said, “under certain conditions subjects may be willing to put up with inconvenience, suffering and disruption of their lives, rather than to continue to submit passively or to obey a ruler whose policies they can no longer tolerate.” Herein lies the power of active non-violence.

14.  Satyagraha: the power of active non-violence

What is active non-violence? Gandhi has called his mode of resistance, Satyagraha. This term is derived from two Sanskrit words, Satya which means ‘truth’ and Agraha which means ‘firm grasping’. Satyagraha thus means holding firmly to the truth or fidelity or adherence to the truth. What exactly does this mean?

If as Gandhi says, the oppressive ruler is able to exercise control and dominance over us, because of our consent or cooperation, i.e. we allow ourselves to be terrorized and thus bow to his evil will, Satyagraha or holding firmly to the truth means the refusal to cooperate with injustice and to anything which is violative or our conscience.

And what will be the consequence of this withdrawal of cooperation from the oppressive ruler? Gandhi says “I believe and everybody must grant, that no government can exist without the cooperation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill.”

An unjust government rules because we allow it to rule over us. The power of the tyrant has overcome the power of the people, for we allowed it to enslave our hearts i.e. we allowed ourselves to be terrorized. But the moment we refuse to cooperate with it, that government will eventually collapse. There lies the power of active non-violence.

15.  A Gandhian understanding of the February people power uprising

It is in this light that we can understand how the essentially non-violent people power uprising toppled the Marcos dictatorship. By withdrawing their support and assistance from the much hated regime, the latter has been deprived of its power to rule over them. This was evident when the people stayed along E.D.S.A during the military uprising despite Marcos’s threat to use force against them and the military rebels, even blocking the path of attacking tanks and when they stayed late in the evening, mindless of the curfew declared by the tyrant. As one writer has stated:

This man who ruled with wily mind and iron fist, who for two decades had deceived and             cowed             and killed: was he the same pathetic patriarch ordering phantom troops, declaring a state of emergency on a people who no longer allowed themselves to be deceived or cowed or killed.

           

It is in this light that we shall be able to understand the power behind Cory’s civil disobedience campaign. By boycotting the crony and government controlled banks, media and businesses, we pave the way for their eventual bankruptcy and collapse. And since the dictatorial regime derive the resources for its survival from the above, by so doing we deprive it of the means whereby it can further exploit and terrorize us, leaving it completely powerless.

16.  People power as decisive

It is in this light likewise that we can rightly understand the role played by the U.S. and the military uprising in toppling the Marcos dictatorship. If the U.S. has ever withdrawn its support from Marcos, it is not as an act of magnanimity or a high regard for freedom and democracy. For it has supported Marcos for so many years, despite the latter’s abuses, so long as its interests were protected by the tyrant. In those days of February, America has however realized that Marcos can no longer rule over the Filipino people. Thus to continue to support him, is to join Marcos in his downfall To protect its self-interest, it had to distance itself and withdraw its support from its long-time friend and ally.

While the military uprising did contribute in toppling Marcos, its role was but secondary to people power. As originally planned, the R.A.M. officers would launch a coup against Marcos, with no active people’s participation.

Yet because of Marcos’s premature discovery of their plot and in view of their failure to get enough support from their military comrades, Enrile and Ramos for their own survival sought people’s support by recognizing Cory’s victory in the snap elections. Had they not done this, the people would not have gone to E.D.S.A. to risk their lives in order to protect them from the loyalist soldiers. Had there been no military uprising, Marcos just the same would have fallen from power because of the civil disobedience campaign, but with more sacrifices on the part of the people.

17.  Requirement: the readiness to suffer

Indeed, to sacrifice, to be ready to suffer, this is the price to be paid if one decides to embark in a campaign of active non-violence. This will further expose us to the violence of the tyrant, who shall all the more exert efforts to terrorize us. Moreover we have to do away with the shallow and empty comforts that a slave enjoys on account of his cooperation.

Thus one needs to be prepared in this kind of battle, not by means of arms, but precisely by being ready to suffer and take risks, i.e. of being jailed for violating an unjust command or law. The slave avoids this, for fear of harm. Thus he cowardly submits to the will of the evil-doer. Yet the Satyagrahi, the non-violent resister by his readiness to suffer has conquered fear and there lies his strength. From then on, violence loses its power over him; he is genuinely a free man. Jose Burgos, the Publisher of the then We Forum, which Marcos closed, and who was arrested and detained together with his fellow staffers has expressed this message so well when he said in a letter to his readers:

As you read this note, please do not grieve. For contrary to your feelings and sentiments now, I am free- notwithstanding the four concrete walls and steel bars that confine me… I and the rest-may have been physically detained but our spirits left high in freedom.

Are you truly free out there? Or have you resigned yourselves to be shackled by the chains of your fears, your anxieties, you apathies? Smash you chains, be free.