This is the first in the three-part series of my reflections on Joseph Scalice's controversial book, Drama of Dictatorship (Note: A shorter version of this will appear as a book review in a journal)
The 2022 elections in the Philippines saw the stunning return to the apex of power of a scion of the Marcos family. What used to be subdued, decades-long, smoldering “wars” over the history and memory of the Marcos era exploded in stunning displays of acrimony on both sides of the political divides, tearing apart friendships, family and romantic relations, as well as professional ties. The clashing narratives of the Golden vs Dark Ages, which supposedly characterize the Marcos period, reflect the unprecedented polarization of the Filipino nation along simultaneously political and historical fault lines.
Joseph Scalice's book Drama of Dictatorship: Martial Law and the Communist Parties of the Philippines is a stunningly decisive and timely intervention in the ongoing, fiery debates. It is, in my view, an exemplar of a nuanced and meticulous approach to the history of the Marcos period. Rather than the one-dimensional, black-or-white teleology of good and evil that is common in the Marcos era historiography, each chapter in this book pulsates with the complexity and dynamism of a compelling historical account. It does not mean that the book will have the last say, as several of its claims and conclusions will remain debatable for years to come. This book, however, forces proponents of either the Golden or Dark Age narratives to rethink what they believe in. In addition, they may find it difficult to uphold the simplistic, selective, and moralistic character of such narratives. The book clearly shows the power of a rigorous scholarship in the face of massive political and moral pressures both from the pro- and anti-Marcos camps to wrest control of historical narratives. It offers a forceful assertion of historical scholarship’s adjudicatory authority on this subject. While it is likely to be dismissed by both pro- and anti-Marcos die-hard supporters as flawed, it will be appreciated by many others who are aware and have grown tired of the highly partisan character of scholarship and public discourses about the Marcos era.
The book consists of five chapters that narrate and analyze in very fine detail what happened in the years leading to the declaration of martial law in September 1972 up to its peak in 1975-1976. The well-written introduction clearly spells out the book’s startling arguments: (1) that it was not only Marcos but also other Filipino leaders across ideological divides who were desirous of dictatorship; (2) that they all threw the common people whose welfare they invariably claim to fight for, under the bus of political expediency and hypocrisy; and, finally, (3) that the two communist parties (PKP and CPP), whose rationale for existence is to protect and fight for the interests of the working classes, betrayed them instead and this betrayal owed to their adherence to Stalinism. While it is common knowledge among many Filipinos how dirty elite politics is, they are likely to be astonished still by the book’s revelations about how much filthier it in fact was. The guilty ones were not just the traditional elites and Marcos, but also the progressive liberals and leftists who poised morally ascendant as their critics.
Framed as a drama, the book prepares the audience by providing in Chapter 1 an overview of the political situation in the post-war decades and by introducing the key players as well as their ‘understudies’. The story of the ‘gathering storm’ in the mid-late 1960s also begins to unfold in this chapter in a prose that is eloquent and engaging. The decisive victory of Marcos in the 1969 elections and his enemies’ ballistic responses conclude the first act of the drama. The metaphorical use of drama to refer to the build-up to a dictatorship seems astute. For one, drama connotes intense emotion, characterized by conflict, tensions, and unexpected turns, which in fact the book successfully captures. For another, the dramatic frame through which the narratives were woven gives off the scent of being staged or conspiratorial, downplaying the open-endedness of the unfolding historical process. While one may decry the diminishing of the contingency of history, perhaps it is the point: that in a country like the Philippines, power relations are so skewed in favor of the few that history and politics can hardly be open-ended. Much of what transpired was staged and carried out through the theatrical machinations by elites who fought for directorial supremacy. Personally, I like the metaphor for its honesty about the representational character and narrative roots of historical reconstruction. As the author of the book, Scalice is the scriptwriter and director of the drama. He has the power to stage it in ways he deemed right and defensible; he is also accountable for whatever consequences it may bring.
Chapter 2 focuses on the First Quarter Storm of January-March 1970 that saw a series of violent confrontations between the mostly student activists and the state operatives. A key point noted here, which was a crucial feature of the CPP’s strategy as the book shows, was its deliberate provocation to elicit state violence to radicalize and brutalize the youth, in the process hasten the revolutionary process. Another is the Stalinist injunction to cooperate strategically with relevant groups, including the “class enemies” such as oligarchs and capitalists, to advance the cause of the national democratic revolution, often at the expense of the interests of the working class. This factor explains the two communist parties’ (the CPP and KMP) rather irregular partnership, so the book claims, with figures like Ferdinand Marcos and Ninoy Aquino, as well as traditional politicians, oligarchs and other capitalists. It is explicit in the introduction the author's preference for Trotskyism over Stalinism to which he attributes the alleged opportunism, hypocrisy, and lies of the two communist parties. One of the key motivations that underpins the whole book, so it seems, is to save Marxism from those that gave it a very bad name, including Stalinism.
The structure of the book’s argument is well established in the first two chapters and the subsequent ones provide more fascinating details and cases to reinforce the points. The lengthy Chapters 3 and 4, respectively entitled Barricades and The Writ Suspended, cover the eventful year of 1971. They narrate and analyze in characteristically detailed fashion key events such as the attempted coup in January, the establishment of the Diliman Commune in February, the CPP’s attempt to control the labor unions, the rivalry between the CPP and PKP, the massacre in May, the Plaza Miranda Bombimg and supension of writ of habeas corpus in August, and the elections in November. Together they amply demonstrate the manipulative hands of the elites and the communists and their betrayal of the working classes, as well as the collusion among groups that were supposedly ideologically incompatible. The author can hardly conceal his disgust over the opportunism of the key actors in this drama, particularly those from the two communist parties.
Chapter 5 focuses on the events leading to the declaration of the Martial Law in September 1972, as well as its aftermath up to 1975-1976. Just like in other chapters, several claims here can be endlessly debated, some would even reject them offhand, but the evidentiary justifications it offers may not be easily dismissed. For those who genuinely believed in the integrity of Ninoy Aquino and Joma Sison, reading through this chapter will be excruciating. The respective poster boy of liberal and leftist politics in the country, Ninoy is depicted here as Marcos’s alter ego, as calculating, manipulative, prone to violence and authoritarian as his nemesis. Sison, on the other hand, is the betrayer of the working classes, subordinating their interests to those of the capitalists while feeding them to the machines of state repression to brutalize and awaken their revolutionary spirit. The implication is dire: ordinary people cannot trust leaders regardless of ideological orientation. Amid the rising tides of populism in various parts of the world including the Philippines in the past two decades, a book like this offers more than a glimpse at possible reasons.
The book closes with an epilogue that, in my view, is less than satisfactory. I am unsure as to whether it was hastily written when mental fatigue had set in, or it was carefully thought through but the author was simply blindsided by his own predispositions. I feel the conclusion missed the opportunity to pin down and articulate the findings’ far-reaching implications. The supposed re-staging of the drama of dictatorship in the contemporary Philippines with Duterte and another Marcos at the helm, and the reference to the rather tired liberal tirade against populism, invoke the well-rehearsed trope of history being replicated or continued. It painfully missed the hugely changed situations on the ground, as indicated, for instance, in Filipinos’ overwhelming support for Duterte’s authoritarianism till the end of his regime, as well as in the spectacular return to power of a Marcos. Clinging to the liberal fantasy that Filipino voters who elected them were “unthinking” and merely being manipulated by Marcos's fake news and propaganda, the book’s epilogue ignored precisely the question that needs to be confronted head-on: what was the pattern of behaviors among the elite liberal, conservative, and leftist political actors in the Marcos era that continued in the post-EDSA decades that may have pushed many to grow distrustful and tired of the traditional representative politics, to the point they were more than willing to throw their lot with the likes of Duterte and Marcos Jr? The book is rich in details that could have cast a spotlight on the serious problem with the logic of progressive politics that for decades tied the liberals and leftist groups in their hips. That is, rather than being responsive to people’s needs, it was anchored mainly on the hatred of Marcos and the fear of authoritarianism. By resurrecting the old and trite bogeyman of the return of dictatorship, the author appeared tone-deaf, oblivious to the big elephant in the room: that the huge majority Filipinos do not care about the issues of human rights, authoritarianism, and anti-Marcoism, as much as the liberal-leftist intellectuals believe or would like them to. Thus, liberals and leftists, well-meaning they may be, cannot claim to represent them. In addition, by blaming the CPP for the “noxious political atmosphere that hangs over the Philippines today” (p. 263), the book gives them too much credit, overshadowing the role of the liberal intellectuals, among other actors, for the sad state of contemporary Philippine politics. Personally, I find it sad that the 260 pages of pure grit, beautifully written prose, and vigorously argued historical analysis could end in such a whimper. Be that as it may, it is a book of indisputable importance, as I shall discuss further in Part II.
To be continued
No comments:
Post a Comment