If we judge the success of rallies by the number of marchers and their enthusiastic participation, then the anti-corruption gathering last Nov. 30 was massively successful.
But one comment from an emcee was totally uncalled for. Since the rally fell on the birth anniversary of the Great Plebeian, the emcee tried to exalt Bonifacio by comparing his greatness to that of Rizal. The latter, or his heroism, the emcee called “taphaw.” The audience did not know what to make of that ill-advised obiter dictum. The co-emcee then simply said, “I think they agree.” As we celebrate Rizal Day two days from today, I like to react to that statement.
I have deep sympathies for the founder of the Katipunan, who indeed was a victim of the power play of the Cavite elite during the Tejeros convention. One of the most embarrassing pages in Philippine history is that the bolo-wielder from Tondo was executed not by the Spanish forces but by fellow revolutionaries. I do share the view that our textbooks have not given due recognition to the heroism of Bonifacio.
But do we have to denigrate Rizal in order to exalt Bonifacio? Are we presented with an either-or choice? Since the emcee did not explain his comparison, I am left to wonder what he meant. Was he following a Marxist reading of history that sees Bonifacio as a representative of the proletariat whose revolutionary program was rejected by Rizal, a member of the bourgeois class? The National Artist Nick Joaquin would state that such reading “sounds like an egghead effort to make Marxist boots out of Philippine bakya.”
What I can say is that such reading, even if it contains some elements of truth, is ultimately simplistic. There are many reasons for describing it as such but I will mention only a few. First of all, Bonifacio himself was an ardent admirer of Rizal. That he tried to get the support of this European educated ilustrado would prove this point. Secondly, one reading of Rizal’s thoughts on the revolution is that he did not reject it in principle. Rather, he believed that the Filipinos were not yet ready. Whether or not this reading is correct, it is safe to say that the two did not disagree on the end-goal. Even the clamor of the ilustrados that the Philippines be represented in the Spanish Cortes should be taken to mean as a step towards independence.
Thirdly, the Philippine revolution eventually failed and this may prove the point Rizal made about sufficient preparation. In fact, the revolution led by Bonifacio had an extremely short life-span. But preparation should not be limited to refer to the availability of arms. It can mean the maturity of the people, especially their leaders, to make sacrifices for the end-goal.
This brings me to a discussion within the philosophy of communism itself. Karl Marx theorized that real revolutions come from below, the proletariat which referred to the industrial laborer during his time. But reflecting on the progress of the Russian revolution, Vladimir Lenin would qualify this view in his book “What is to be Done?” For Lenin, the proletariat, if left to themselves, can only reach trade-union consciousness and not revolutionary consciousness. For a revolution to succeed, the presence of vanguards is necessary. Vanguards are the disciplined core group who are willing to make sacrifices for the revolution.
On this issue, (and only on this issue) I am more of a Leninist than a Marxist. I see the validity of the point that a revolution needs leaders who can give committed leadership, clarity of vision and the willingness to make sacrifices.
This is not to say that Rizal followed Lenin. To say so would be anachronistic. But Rizal also believed that the establishment of a just society necessitates a people who are deeply aware of their own dignity and are willing to sacrifice for what they are fighting for. The thought of Rizal on the revolution is placed in the mouth of Padre Florentino in his El Filibusterismo.
“If Spain were to see us less tolerant of tyranny and readier to fight and suffer for our rights, Spain would be the first to give us freedom because, when the fruit of conception reaches the time of birth, woe to the mother who tries to strangle it. But as long as the Filipino people do not have the sufficient vigor to proclaim, head held high and chest bared, their right to life in a human society, and to guarantee it with their sacrifices, with their own blood;… as long as we see them wrapped themselves up in their selfishness, begging with their eyes for a share of their booty, why give them independence?”
The issue then was the readiness for independence. Today, the issue is the same readiness, but for transparency and accountability. Are we willing to fight for it?
Who says such message is taphaw?