A tale of two historical revisionisms: Why is a nuanced history of the Marcos years necessary?

 

by Rommel A. Curaming

Many people think we know what happened exactly during the Marcos years from 1966 to 1986. The long-dominant narrative tells us it was not just a dark age, but the darkest one in Philippine history. This narrative took shape under the euphoria of the 1986 EDSA ‘revolution’. It was propagated by various anti-Marcos and progressive groups. These groups suffered under the regime and many of them were well-placed in the media, academia, NGOs, religious communities and basic education. Through the years, it has become the standard and hegemonic account of the period. It became a doxa, treated as a self-evident truth. One can question it only at risk of being severely castigated.

The other, increasingly assertive and bourgeoning lately, is the narrative that paints Marcos years as a/the 'golden age'. Upheld initially by hard core Marcos loyalists, this version long existed, confined at the margins in the post-EDSA era. In recent years, it gained traction beyond the circles of Marcos loyalists enabled by the astute use of the social and other media by the BBM camp. We may also consider the positive memories of the Marcos years among segments of the population who lived through it, passing stories on to their children and grandchildren. Circulating against the backdrop of the failure of liberals-led post-EDSA regimes to meet people’s expectations, these memories fuel nostalgia for the Marcos era. As a counter-narrative to the long-established view, it is often branded as fake news or historical revisionism.

The transcendental truth contains a mix of these polar claims. Each of them has grains of truth, to what extent only God knows, but they overemphasized certain aspects and ignored others. The ‘dark age’ version projects onto the national screen the viewpoint mainly of victims of the Marcos regime. Borrowing the idea from Talitha Espiritu (2017), they allegorize what happened to them as a national tragedy, excluding the contrasting experience and views of people who appreciated what the Marcos regime did and what he stood for. That almost half of the voters voted for Marcos in 1986 snap elections suggests this segment is sizeable. This point is important to help us understand why a Marcos kept on being voted to office not just in Ilocos but nationally as well despite their family being unceremoniously removed from power in 1986. The ‘golden age’ view, on the other hand, overstates the achievements of the Marcos government while ignoring or downplaying the human rights violation, economic crisis, extravagance, corruption, cronyism and violence it committed. Both views are selective and they lack nuances expected of a good history.

Plenty of books were written about the period, but a balanced and comprehensive historical accounts have yet to be written. The rabid and tenacious anti-Marcos sentiment in the post-1986 years prevented this possibility. Impartiality could be costly for any scholar who dare to do it. Talitha Espiritu’s book Passionate Revolution, which I reviewed here, is a rare gem. It exemplifies the nuanced approach that we badly need. For some years, I have encouraged young Filipino historians to do oral history projects to examine what ordinary people in various places in the country actually remember about the Marcos years, and why. These generations are dying out and it is good to record their memories of the time. But no takers. Some said it is already obvious, so what is the point? Others think there are other more interesting and important topics to pursue. My hunch is that if well-designed oral history projects are done in various places, we shall see a more complex and nuanced picture of the era. Testimonies of activists, left-leaning leaders and other victims of the Marcos regime dominate accounts of the period. There are also memoirs and other accounts by pro-Marcos supporters. Both are no doubt valuable as records, but taken together, they offer partial accounts of the period, either skewed to one side or another. They are also viewed from the elite perspectives of the two camps. What must be included are accounts of daily life among ordinary people in different parts of the country. Ideally, such oral history projects should have been conducted years or decades earlier. In the wake of the stunning victory of BBM, the prevailing sentiment is likely to influence respondents’ memories of the Marcos years. Nevertheless, it still needs to be done and impartial professional historians must do it to ensure methodological rigor. They also have to do it soon before the surge of blatantly pro-Marcos efforts engulf the whole historical landscape.

Kakampinks and the mainstream media, both domestic and international, appear so sure about the sin of historical revisionism that the BBM camp is guilty of. Strictly speaking, revising history is an inherent part of writing history. We write history on the basis of available evidences. Once we find additional evidences or create a new interpretation of existing ones, it is natural to revise history. The so-called sin of historical revisionism ensues when a new version or interpretation goes against, even totally revises, the hegemonic understanding of history, such as when questions were raised about the Holocaust. Some of those who did it ended up being called historical revisionists or 'Holocaust deniers'  and got jailed or fined.  When the widely and long-entrenched 'dark age' interpretation of Marcos years began to be challenged by the emergent 'golden era' narrative, the proponents and supporters of the 'dark age' view were indignant, charging them of revising the past. This allegation is based on the assumption that an authoritative or truthful history has already been written and no one may challenge or change it. This illiberal assumption is untenable, as a nuanced and balanced history of the period has arguably yet to be written. And even if we grant it has already been written, it is still subject to possible revisions. Nothing is cast in stone in history writing, provided there are new evidence or valid reasons for new interpretation.

More interestingly, they also missed that their camp was (and still is) guilty of historical revisionism themselves, and they were and remain oblivious of it. They did it earlier, since 1986 when they promoted the Never Again and EDSA narratives[1]. This was a revisionist history, erasing the dynamics and complexity of the period by reducing it into several purely negative characteristics. Specifically, from the standpoint of almost 50% who voted for Marcos in 1986 snap election, the Never Again narrative revised their favorable memories and assessment of what happened then. That hardly anyone recognizes it as historical revisionism is a testament to the power of the victors not just to write history but to erase this power in the equation, making it seem that history is objective, that it spontaneously writes itself. Howls of protest may be raised about tons of evidence that attest to the cruelty of the Marcos regime, but evidence also exist to support the more favorable views. The point is, these opposing pieces of evidence need not cancel each other to determine "the truth" about the period. The contrasting pictures they offered form parts of a comprehensive, textured, and more realistic representation of the past. 

Imputing moral equivalence is not the purpose of drawing parallelism between the two revisionisms. I leave judgement to the readers. My purpose is analytic parity and to find viable ways how to move forward. It is necessary for us to understand the unrecognized political nature of ANY historical claims, regardless of accuracy or lack thereof. Both liberals and conservatives tend to deny the political underpinning of their preferred history. For them it is an objective history. The political character of history can only be concealed and denied, but it cannot be expunged. It is inherent in historical knowledge, among other branches of knowledge. The liberal view of the supposedly oppositional relationship between good scholarship and politics is a myth; it fantasizes the good or accurate scholarship neutralizing the political. It is a fantasy  because regardless of quality, a scholarship can be, and has actually been, used to serve any compatible political interests, good or bad, right or left or center. Knowledge assumes a life of its own as it circulates in social spaces. Hitler and the Nazi, for example, used the most advanced science and scholarship of the time to serve his interests, even if the scholars did not envision their work for such purposes. US, Chinese and Russian governments also do that.  The liberal view easily forgets that given the inevitable social context of knowledge production and consumption, whatever conclusion reached, accurate or not, will always favor one side or another. It cannot be neutral. More fundamentally, the very act of writing history—using historical methodology—is enabled by the collective power of the community of scholars. Impartial scholarship is the well-spring of power of scholars. It is their politics, to put it candidly. It is a kind of power whose potency and legitimacy rests on not being recognized as such. For anyone curious to know more about this line of analysis, you can read my book Power and Knowedge in Southeast Asia: Scholars and State in Indonesia and the Philippines where I analyse comparatively Marcos’s Tadhana project with Suharto’s similar project.

On part of the public, they also cannot consume history outside of the existing power relations; historical interpretation cannot exist in a socio-political vacuum. Either one agrees with the ideological left, right, or center, or with the supposedly impartial scholars. Regardless, one favors one political stance over another. This should not put us in despair. It simply is its nature. We will be in better position to do something if we know this sooner rather than later.  

If ultimately all history, regardless of quality or accuracy, is political, what is the point of aspiring for a multi-faceted and nuanced history of the Marcos period? This kind of history will allow ample space for the competing narratives. Rather than bickering endlessly on which version is 'the truth' and which one is 'fake,' we can profit more by decoding the political interests and human needs that drive competing historical claims. With multiplicity as our starting point, there is a greater chance we learn to tolerate our political and other differences and we can move forward with less historical baggage. With the sharp polarization ensuing from the 2022 elections, it is imperative various sides have to learn to co-exist civilly, if not truly peacefully.

References Cited:

Curaming, Rommel. Power and Knowledge in Southeast Asia: Scholars and State in Indonesia and the Philippines. London and New York: Routledge, 2020.

Curaming, Rommel and  Lisandro Claudio. “(Re)Assessing EDSA ‘People Power’ as a Critical Conjuncture.” In Conjunctures and Continuities in Southeast Asia, edited by Narayanan Ganesan, Singapore: ISEAS, pp. 25-52.            

Espiritu, Talitha. Passionate Revolutions : The Media and the Rise and Fall of the Marcos Regime. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2017.

---

[1] Leloy Claudio and I wrote an article that re-assesses the 1986 EDSA People Power, https://www.academia.edu/2147171/_Re_Assessing_EDSA_People_Power_as_a_Critical_Conjuncture