SOME analysts and observers are of the opinion that the rise of Bongbong Marcos is due to the failures of the promise of Edsa. My question is: What did Edsa promise? Was there even a promise in the first place?
I am not an avid fan of Mrs. Cory Aquino, and neither was I a supporter of Noynoy Aquino when he was president, but I think it would be fair to say that Cory did not promise us anything in the first place. She replaced Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and rose to the presidency at a time when the country needed a leader. She was not a perfect leader, not even close to ideal, but I believe she served the purpose of restoring the democratic spirit that was lost during Marcos's rule.
There are those who'd accuse Mrs. Aquino of not only bringing back the oligarchs but also being an oligarch herself. There may be some truth to this. However, if this is an accusation that comes from another oligarch, then the accuser lacks shame for the nerve that he or she's got.
Why blame Edsa for bringing back the oligarchs. Truth to tell, Marcos did not suppress the oligarchies in this country. He merely succeeded in sidelining those who're not aligned to his camp. He was exactly guilty of the same mortal sin he accused his enemies of committing. He created his own oligarchy and relied on his technocrats. One way or another, he did not eradicate the rule of the few but strengthened it in his own version.
Let me go back to what I said: what's the promise of Edsa? Perhaps those who are pro-Marcos would say that the promise of Edsa was to make people's lives better. This may be articulated to mean, further, that the post-Edsa Philippines would seek to give more jobs, improve the educational system, and enhance democracy.
But, again, Edsa's not a promise. Primarily, it was an effort to put an end to the rule of a leader who wanted to stay in power longer than what the Constitution allowed him to do. It was an expression of discontent on the part of some who could not live with the abuses of the administration. If Edsa would be associated with progress and development, it should only be because it was a "gateway" to regaining the desired normalcy that the Philippines lost for some years.
How the Philippines should have progressed after Edsa must not be the responsibility of the forces of Edsa. It should be the responsibility of the presidents who managed this country after Edsa, of the senators and representatives who were entrusted with the power to govern this country.
The 1986 People Power succeeded its goal of bringing back fairness in the rules. If the rules were not played fairly, it is the fault of the players and not the rules or those who gave it.
If there is one person who is also a beneficiary of Edsa, it is none other than President Duterte. Perhaps it would be good to ask him how he placed his political cards especially as a mayor of Davao in a post-Edsa Philippines? Where was he aligned during the presidency of PNoy Aquino, and what was his stand on the allegations of corruption against Mrs. Gloria Arroyo?
Apparently, Bongbong Marcos and his supporters need a strawman -- one that can be used to justify the return of a Marcos. We then start to think and talk about a "paradise lost" or that "missed opportunity" of being another Singapore. Some would go far in their wishful thinking of "Marcos as the Lee Kuan Yew we never had."
All I can say is, well dear comrades, you are entitled to your freedom of “hallucination.”