Nicholas Salmons
9/10/2009
9:30 pm
Following the death of previous Filipino President Corazon C. Aquino, over 100,000 citizens followed her funeral. Allegiance to the late President stemmed from her husband, former President Benigno Aquino Jr., who was assassinated in 1983 after challenging Ferdinand E. Marcos’ dictatorship. In spite of the overwhelming support generated for President Aquino, many Filipinos now feel that very little positive and lasting change has occurred since the ousting of Ferdinand Marcos. In retrospect, some Filipinos have considered the original mindset and motivation behind Marcos’ deposing somewhat premature or ill formed, leading to an unrealistic expectation of immediate and effortless progressive change. One Filipino remarked, “I say the problem is us. We did not change.” Interestingly enough, The Philippines boast numerous, “independent organizations and interest groups,” complemented by a “flamboyantly free press,” and simultaneously suffer under the pressure of both Communist and Islamic-based outbreaks of violence and its “restive military,” which has apparently become as corrupt as it once was during Marcos’ dictatorship. With so much attention put on the political sphere recently, little effort has reached the real issues of the nation, where apparently roughly a third of the population lives below poverty levels. This factor has made the nation’s highest export its own people, in the form of overseas laborers.
I think what struck me the most about this article was that despite the overthrowing of a dictator, the commentary cited regarding the current situation in the Philippines was all negative in some form. This wasn’t surprising, after reading why this was viewed as the case, but it was incredibly informative as to the nature of social change for its own sake. Without providing some “better way” to supplement the loss of another, there is really no point in rising up. Given, there is a better way than tyranny, but when the citizens of a nation claim that the same level of corruption exists today as did in the old regime, the question remains, “what for?” This was explained to some extent as well, as Filipino government and culture is still heavily tied to traditional practices (“a collection of fiefdoms and oligarchies and political dynasties”) and lacks real, cohesive national identity. So the next question comes to be how to improve what should have already been made better, especially given the rise in the Philippines’ apparent dependence on the globalization of labor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/world/asia/20iht-phils.html
No comments:
Post a Comment