Ninna Sandra F. Fernandez
Common knowledge constructs the idea of a leader as someone who guides or commands a group while a dictator is a leader that holds an absolute power. On the other hand, history constructs a leader as someone who is very much inspirational while a dictator is a leader full of commands. Using the context of knowledge and history shows us that what people know can actually define while history shows action and impact of these definition as it records how they were used. This gives us an idea that both context cross validates each other and helps us determine what is good and bad in society by identifying whether or not actions or the impacts are aligned to what we know. In this sense, we can use this ability to examine one of the historical events in the Philippines that continuously divides the heart and mind of Filipinos, Martial Law.
Martial Law is the “the exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory” and it is only done when the society is under war, periods of civil unrest, or chaos. This act is only declared when necessary, most especially if the country needs peace and order. Looking at the Philippine setting, Martial was signed in September 21, 1972 and declared two days later by Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr., the ruling president during that time. It was said that Marcos foresaw the rise of violence and disorder in the country that allowed him to implement the declaration as a way to see the extent of his power as the current commander in chief of the Armed Forces that time. But little did he know that such decision goes beyond his intelligence and power because the effect will mainly be felt by his people, given that he directly chose for them, most especially the children.
Filipinos who were able to survive the martial law period called their children “martial law babies” who were born during the 1970’s and witnessed the life under martial law.. Whenever martial law babies come across the name of Ferdinand Marcos and the idea of martial law, it only boils down to two things – either he was a good and effective leader who disciplined the Filipinos or he was cruel and used his power for personal gain. The two responses portray the life that they were under in during his rule. Sides were determined through the laws that were implemented – the arrest of individuals who were seen as threats to the administration, curfew hours and the shutdown of the media and any other channel that counter-attacks Marcos’ beliefs.
Either side was decided upon the impacts of these laws and pro-Marcos Filipinos stand for martial law due to the “for the people” eradication of criminals, terrorism and corruption as well as a step towards peace. Anti-Marcoses, on the other hand had a more humane perspective on the regime as they fought for those who underwent human rights violations as numbers in physical torture and deaths increased.
The result of a division in the lifestyle of the so called martial law babies is a continuous debate and confusion today as they are now parents of their own. Their beliefs and opinions are slowly passed down to their children every time the past is brought to the present. It gives an idea of manipulation that their kids should believe in what they are sharing because they are on first-hand data and at the same time, gives an idea of influence because the children are only exposed to their parents’ way of thinking. This gives out a continuous argument given that there is no common knowledge about the effect of Ferdinand Marcos on the Philippines and his declaration of martial law because each person has a different idea of it.
The 46th anniversary of Martial Law last September 21, stands as proof that Ferdinand Marcos still lives through us because together, we are all victims and at the same time, products of his dictatorship.
Коментарі