Saturday, February 27, 2010

Why Edsa 1 Is Sacred & Edsa 2, Immoral: A Pictorial Comparison

On the 24th anniversary week of the original EDSA "People Power" Revolution (February 22-25, 1986), let's look back and try to compare the historic event with the second "People Power," the so-called EDSA 11 that primarily took place again in the streets intersecting EDSA Ave., Metro Manila from January 17-20, 2001.



EDSA 1: Patriotic
EDSA 2: Judgmental


EDSA 1: Defiant, but clear of invectives
EDSA 2: Hateful, full of curses


EDSA 1: Children used to win hearts
EDSA 2: Minors used to express hate


EDSA 1: Nuns meek & prayerful
EDSA 2: Nuns haughty, did thumbs down


EDSA 1: Hopeful people
EDSA 2: Haughty mob


EDSA 1: Sea of human tank stoppers
EDSA 2: Nothing to stop

EDSA 1: "L," for Laban sign
EDSA 2: Thumbs down, w/ mocking faces


EDSA 1: Where were the Reds?
EDSA 2 : Left & Right unholy alliance


The Ousted in EDSA 1: Dictator Ferdinand Marcos
The Ousted in EDSA 2: Democratically elected Estrada

EDSA 1: Noble

EDSA 2: Undemocratic


EDSA 1: A Revolution
EDSA 2: A Power Grab


EDSA 1 President: Corazon Cojuangco Aquino (later perceived as "Least Corrupt President in Philippine History")

EDSA 2 President: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (the Illegitimate, later perceived to be the "Most Corrupt President in Philippine History")


EDSA 1: People Power, for real

EDSA 2: Mob Power, impostor revolution

The revolution of EDSA I sure was real. The original EDSA sought the overhaul of government, not just the ouster of one man. The crowd was defiant but respectful; the religious, meek and prayerful, not derisive nor haughty. February 1986 showcased the "People Power" of a whole nation, which well included the simple masses. It was the culmination of years of Filipinos' yearning and struggle for democracy. EDSA I restored freedom in this country. It is sacred.

EDSA II was an impostor People Power. Belatedly renounced by Cory Aquino, the very yellow embodiment of the original EDSA, it was haughty, derisive, bad-mouthed, judgmental, undemocratic, not spontaneous but conspiratorial. The EDSA of January 2001 was a power grab in disguise, which sought nothing but the downfall of a democratically elected President. It showed the power of an educated but gullible, ill-mannered mob of middle class (and Left). It also revealed the guile and the disrespect of political, business and religious elites towards democratic institutions. EDSA II is immoral.

Then there's the unsuccessful EDSA 3 of May 2001, a real revolution that aimed to rectify the fallacy of the EDSA 2 power grab, but which pathetically failed because the elites arrogated unto themselves the exclusive claim to EDSA. Buried in history, its importance was both undermined and misread by the elites and the Left. But that would be another Philippine EDSA story....

 EDSA 3 (April 25 - May 1, 2001) bloodily dispersed....


Anonymous said...

why do i get a strong sense to agree in all these, edsa 3 in particular.

one thing you seem to have forgotten: cardinal sin's appeal vs text invitation to party.


Jesusa Bernardo said...

Yes, i.n.e., you're right about the texting part but I was limited by the photos I could get hold of. This was a spur-of-the-moment post, explaining also why it's a little late.

If I may add, I did plan to include the Philippine Graphic ('EDSA II could have been bloody' coup confessions) cover of the Illegitimate and the First Gentle_og, but there was no clear-cut equivalent in Edsa 1 (Enrile, etc. planned a coup but the civilians saved the day and so on--rather complicated).

AdB said...

Edsa 2 was an act of sabotage against the Republic.

That's how I saw it and that's how I see it still.

To me the blame rests not only in the civil society, the reds, Cardinal Sin, the nuns, and the military who conspired to violate the Constitution but also, sadly, in Erap too.

Jesusa Bernardo said...

Hi AdB

Pictures, when they're not the tampered type, do speak volumes of a situation. The Edsa 2 pix here say a mouthful, and more. In that context, I agree it was also Erap's fault.

Had Estrada elected to disperse the Edsa crowd early on, I think they'll be saying "Wag po, or "Maawa kayo" instead of "P_tang_na mo" or "Die" to Erap. Or, perhaps, had he chosen to eliminate Tabako (not the PR spy some claim he did) or declare some form of Martial Law early on while banking on the huge support of the masses, Edsa either would not have happened, or wouldn't be as immoral as it turned out to be.

Now, if you refer to his conduct in Malacanang, I agree he had his faults. But even granting that he also got jueteng funds for himself, was that enough grounds to oust him?

Erap, who was and remains the only post-Martial Law president whose electoral victory is clear and uncontested, had to be ousted for mere corruption allegations? And the accuser being a corrupt, DOM maniacal governor? (Yes, Erap's a polygamous a bit like our most of like most of our philandering past male presidents but he was never involved in sex escort/tourist scandals.)

How come Fidel Ramos, whose presidential victory is suspect, got away with mega-corruption that even used the name of the centennial of our patriots and revolutionaries? If you ask me, that's a thousand times worse.

Why those conspirators and gullibles of Edsa 2 can be called immoral is because they are not consistent with the application of their principles, if indeed they do have them. Had they ousted Ramos and Arroyo ousted as well, then embrace I will the 2001 Edsa.

Since the ouster singled out Estrada--granting that he was corrupt--but spared Tabako and the Illegitimate "Most Corrupt" Arroyo, then Erap's ouster could not have been his fault.

Edsa 2 was mainly a conspiracy against an imperfect man who dared defy the wishes of the church and of the business tycoons out to rake more profits at the people's expense, and who dared go after and someone like Ramos and the Muslim secessionists.