In two well-publicized speeches last December, President Ferdinand Marcos declared that he would soon lift martial law in the Philippines, perhaps by the end of January. This announcement was craftily timed in expectation of the February visit to the Philippines of Pope John Paul II and the January inauguration of Ronald Reagan.
President Marcos imposed martial law in 1972. The legislative assembly was dissolved, newspapers closed down, political opponents arrested and detained without trial. Since then, President Marcos has ruled by decree and used the military to carry out his policies.
Should Christians now rejoice at President Marcos' recent statements? Is a change coming? The words democracy or normalcy can fool us if we have no concrete criteria to measure what is happening in the Philippines.
Technically, for martial law to end, President Marcos would have to divest himself of his emergency powers. The National Assembly, a rubber-stamp parliament elected in 1978, has been considering amendments to the constitution which would allow Marcos to lift martial law. However, termination of his right to promulgate such a decree is not part of the amendments. Philippine Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile has said that the government intends to keep the power to suspend the right of habeas corpus in selected national cases. Detention of people without trial will continue. So two key elements of the martial law regime will remain, no matter what the system is called.
What would it take for martial law to be lifted and a genuine democracy to be instituted in the Philippines? The obvious barrier to democracy is the economic stranglehold foreign corporations have on the country and the control the U.S. government exercises through its military and economic aid and military bases.
During an October visit to a province in Mindanao, I witnessed the bulldozing of crops planted by tenants living in an area which one of President Marcos' business associates wanted to develop. I sat under a tree in an open field with a woman who had miscarried her baby a week before when she had run after the bulldozers to try to persuade a driver not to destroy her house and crop. To truly dismantle martial law would mean to cut out the power of elite Filipino families who benefit from its continuation. A genuine democracy would include the voice of the poor in the rural areas.
In another province I talked to a woman whose husband had committed suicide after watching a bulldozer destroy his corn crop that he could have harvested three weeks later. His wife was left with nine children, the youngest of whom was three weeks old. Dole pineapples now grow in that field. To truly dismantle martial law would mean to clip the powers, influence, and land the multinationals now have. A democracy would institute a genuine land reform program that would include the foreign-controlled plantations.
In a third province, I watched as a group of farmers tried to appeal to the provincial military commander to save their farm land from being taken over by the expansion of a sugar company. The farmers were left outside the room where the official proceedings took place. They did not have a chance to tell their story. It is common knowledge that each military officer has his own area of business interest. To truly dismantle martial law would mean to dismantle the independent economic base which military officers have built up and solidified during the past eight years. This will require more than a decree.
The national foreign debt of the Philippines approaches $11 billion and continues to mount. The country must keep producing Barbie dolls and planting pineapples and bananas on prime land to raise enough foreign exchange to pay the interest on its foreign debt. A University of the Philippines Law Center study estimates that for every dollar invested in the country, three to four are taken out. People's real wages in comparison to the costs of living continue to shrink.
Perhaps the biggest element in dismantling martial law lies at our doorstep. As I traveled around the Philippines people told me countless times, "President Marcos would not be in power one day longer if he did not have the political, military, and economic support of your government."
The World Bank, which has basically fostered and paid for this style of development, is now questioning the long term viability of the Philippine economy. The Reagan administration, despite its predisposition to support our allies no matter what their human rights record is, will probably still ask itself, "Who is in the best position to take care of America's interests in the Philippines?" It may no longer be President Marcos. So this is a precarious time for Marcos, and he is looking for allies.
The Catholic church in the Philippines is a powerful institution. It is important for Marcos to blunt some of the criticism, if not gain more active sympathy, from the church sector. Dropping the term martial law could win approval from the pope and serve to neutralize some of the higher echelons of the Philippine church structures.
When Cardinal Jaime Sin, leader of the church in the Philippines, was asked whether the pope's visit would serve to legitimate the Marcos government, he replied, "Oh no, the purpose of the pope's visit is to encourage those in Asia working against communism."
Many Filipinos hope that the pope's experience with East European communism will not push him to legitimate the repressive regime of Marcos because it has changed its name or added meaningless democratic trappings. If we understand the economic realities in the Philippines and the part that U.S. corporations, military, and government play in them, we will not rejoice at a name change or slip into supporting any other single person who may have more humane rhetoric than President Marcos, but who will also rely on the army and U.S. support to maintain power.
Real democracy cannot be decreed by a military dictator nor imposed with CIA help. Policies which favor the rich and those already in control, funnel precious resources out of the country, and take land from people who are hungry will never have the support of the majority of the people, who are poor.
The bottom line for discerning our response to the Philippine situation is the question: What is happening to the people? Christians should not be fooled into supporting short-term political solutions that cannot satisfy even a minimal vision of a shalom in which "babies will no longer die in infancy and all people will live out their life span. People will build houses and get to live in them--they will not be used by someone else. They will plant vineyards and enjoy the wine--it will not be drunk by others" (Isaiah 65: 20-22).
Dorothy Friesen was a frequent contributor to Sojourners and former development and church worker in the Philippines when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!