Of Heroes, of Success

Perhaps it’s the nature of news, or what people find interesting to read, but sifting through the headlines of the past two decades, what’s all too-common are the failures of the nation: crime, corruption, kidnappings, natural disasters, murders, and a failing economy. That’s not to say that the country doesn’t have its own share of achievements. We have scientists making breakthroughs in science, businessmen succeeding in their enterprises, or even the successful arrest of criminal suspects. Yet the real positive newsmakers are our celebrities and sportsmen, from winning beauty pageants to making a name in the international scene via song, dance, or theater, to simply gaining medals for the nation. In light of the gloomy atmosphere surrounding the country where politicians cannot be trusted, successful businessmen are envied but seldom praised, or simple, honest and hardworking men and women are underappreciated, the only heroes the public can cling to are the Lea Salongga’s, the Manny Pacquiao’s, and the Precious Lara-Quigaman’s. Because honestly, who else can they look up to?

Of course critics would complain that all of the news of doom and gloom needn’t have happened if the EDSA revolution was a success. And many detractors would say that it wasn’t, that we’re in the rut right now if the then Cory administration had succeeded in doing their job. So was the first EDSA a success? It all depends on what you thought EDSA stood for. Some people cling to EDSA as if it was the day of judgment, when the wicked would all be punished and the just rewarded. For me, however, it seems foolish to place the hopes of a nation, or even that of an individual, in the hands of one event and one person. Life is not a fairy tale where everything neatly falls into place, that once Prince Charming arrives and saves the day that all problems will be solved. More often than not, it’s simply just the beginning. So what could possibly be the intent of the first EDSA revolution? The most immediate that comes to mind is the toppling of a dictator. And when we look at it from that sense, yes, it was a success. The Marcoses fled the country and while people will argue that the cronies and the family are currently active in local politics again, it’s a far cry from the authoritarian rule they once wielded. At the very least, they are in office by the people’s choice (a flaw of democracy if you will, or of rampant cheating) rather than at a whim of a dictator. Some were hoping that EDSA would install a better government. Well, better is a relative term. In a way, yes, the current government is better than what it was two decades ago. But the problems of our country still exists: poverty, corruption, overpopulation, lack of education, and a horrible solution for land-reform. Some even hope that EDSA would uplift us from the economic pit that we were in back then, and complain that the situation has only grown worse. However, we must remember that EDSA wasn’t so much an economic movement as a political one. We wanted the Marcoses out and so we rallied under Cory Aquino, the unlikeliest of president’s. In fact, we must remember that she didn’t want the position in the first place, and only agreed upon the signatures of Filipinos. What were her credentials for the office? Indeed, her husband Benigno Aquino seemed like the perfect ruler of the country yet he never got the chance and we merely settled for his wife. Can we really blame her if her administration was less than what most people hoped for?

Yet perhaps even if we got the most ideal of presidents and let’s throw in the best cabinet possible, would the Philippines have been better in the six years that followed? There was, after all, the debt we incurred, not to mention the death throes of a post-Marcos regime, from coups to energy crisis to appeasing the various political groups. Even if we had the best politicians, would the trials the Filipino people faced truly have never occurred? And perhaps we should also take into consideration the behavior of our citizens, of our very selves. We ask for long term benefits without willing to sacrifice short term rewards. We condemn corrupt politicians yet secretly yearn for them to be our relatives, our business associates, our family friends. When a scandal breaks out, we quickly look for someone to blame, even if in the end they are merely scapegoats. We are governed by mob rule, and our government surrenders to the mob’s will lest they lose the next election. Are we truly better than our current leaders, or are we simply mirrors of them? When we look back at history and start complaining on how futile everything seems to be, do we not contribute to the existing problem of merely complaining but not acting to resolve it?

If there’s any consolation, it’s perhaps my belief that we are our own worst critics. Every nation has its own share of problems and perhaps we’re too critical of the state of things simply because we’re citizens of the country and our nation is the only perspective we know. Does Japan or America or China think that the Philippines is an abysmal country where reform is impossible? I highly doubt it. In fact, the Japanese are probably just as critical about their own problems as we are of ours. The same goes for the Chinese, or Americans, or whatever country you can think of (well, maybe except Canada). There’s always room for improvement and each nation will always have its own share of challenges. A nation that has a need for heroes is a nation that has a problem that needs to be solved. And what nation doesn’t have its own share of heroes?