THE problem with those who defend Marcos’ and his martial law is not just the accuracy of their data or the lack of it. More problematic are their motives. People are clueless if not blind to the fact that as we continue debating and doubting whether there was dictatorship and oppression, we are not just distorting our history. Actually, we are changing the course of our moral compass.
We do not create histories outside of our moral convictions. This is my counter-argument to the claim that there isn’t one prism or schema from which we view things. Although this proposition is valid, it is not the sole hermeneutic principle. True, we see things from different angles. However it would be dishonest, at the very least naïve, to obstinately defend our positions even if we know that others are right.
We are free to offer our thoughts. But this goes with the readiness for scrutiny. Ideas are not created in a vacuum. They are shaped within the context of understanding. This explains why ideas are useless if they are not communicated.
Histories exist because people want to understand something. We do not repeat the past for the sake of repeating it. There is sense in rewinding events only because current realities necessitate such a recall. But just as there is a specific way of remembering the past in the personal level, the same can be said of collective memories.
Thus, while there are many versions of the past, there has to be a better if not a generally acceptable way of recalling and reviewing it. A wife who divorced her husband because she was battered will never review her past from the viewpoint of her husband.
Because history is existentially conditioned, it is not merely a run through of data. Behind our usage of data are our moral convictions. Does hagiography mean anything if heaven and hell do not exist? In the same way, does the life of a national hero mean anything apart from the concept of a nation-state? What are university coffee table books if not narratives of conviction that there is meaning in education, and that learning plays a vital role in the transformation of society?
Gerardo Sicat’s working paper “The Economic Legacy of Marcos” is arguably a good reading on the contributions of Marcos to Philippine politics. I appreciate Sicat’s assessment of the late strongman’s administration. But it cannot be a basis to say that Marcos was not a dictator. Just because we have to give him credit for his infrastructure and all does not mean that he cannot be faulted for the human rights violations.
We don’t need to deny as it is already acknowledged that Marcos did have achievements under his administration. But the history of martial law is not about the bridges and schools that Marcos built. As a nation we are asked to decide on what to value. This is a challenge to a people who are very good in saying “magaling ang Pinoy.” If indeed we are a great people, then we should know how to decide on how to interpret our past.
Errors in history are forgivable. They can be re-written as histories should be. What is not forgivable is the deliberate choice to interpret the past based on twisted convictions, more so if the sitting president has dictatorial features. More so if truths are denied on the pretext that truth is a question of pragmatism and nothing but an invented concept. This should cause more worry because dictators don’t just thrive in totalitarian regimes, they also hide in the division and confusion of peoples, which in a postmodern society is called relativism.