A divided people, a divided country

In my first history class I enrolled in at the University of the Philippines, Diliman, under the late Professor Teodoro Agoncillo, I listened to the soliloquy of this much-revered historian, often in his usual monologue style, lecturing about himself, his struggles through schooling, nation-building and how centuries of colonialism had severely damaged the sense of nationalism of the Filipinos. Here, colonialism refers to the period of foreign domination and control over the Philippines, primarily by Spain and America, cuddling their own favored local elite in governance. From his class, I learned that before colonialism, the country had its civilization of oriental nature and a natural course of development to pursue. With new colonial values imbibed and a well-entrenched local elite forever in rivalry,   the internecine political elite rivalry has become a hallmark of Philippine democracy; the challenge is to remove this obstacle as it hinders genuine development.

A divided people and a divided country. What is happening today—the bitter rivalry between the former political lovebirds -the Marcos and the Duterte camps—is a continuing saga in Philippine politics, a political system nurtured since the onset of colonialism in the country. Colonialism has caused deep social, political, economic, and cultural divides in Philippine society. With it, Prof. Agoncillo sought to ponder on the role of the Filipino elite in the continuing disarray and disunity among the people. The Filipino elite - the rich and the powerful in business and government combined- possess a dual character - an articulator of the peoples’ sentiments and disseminator of progressive liberal ideas but at the same time a collaborationist and compromiser of the interests of the laboring class when pushed to the wall. During the early years of Spanish colonization and the Japanese period, the Filipino elites collaborated with the colonizers. They served as the conduits to the colonizers’ policies and culture of submission to the masses.

Prof. Agoncillo’s assigned readings highlighted how Spanish and American colonialism thrived due to a few local elites who positioned themselves in government to support policies in their favor. These elites often engaged in bitter internecine rivalry during elections, leading to a highly divided society. The intense competition and conflict between these local elites, known as ‘elite rivalry,’ have led to divisive actions and policies. The impact is a society where the ‘masses,’ especially the marginalized, are often transformed into willing spectators, loyal campaigners, captive voters, and paid poll watchers in each other’s brand of patronage politics. Despite their marginalized status, the ‘masses’ play a crucial role in the political system, as they are the ones who ultimately decide the fate of the elite through their votes and support.

Today, as the country moves toward the May 12 interim elections, we witness the traditional Rigdon of elite political parties as they dominate the electoral campaign landscape, where elite members can easily change party loyalty for political convenience. Prof Agoncillo believed that warring local elite politicians, beholden to their foreign patrons, are a source of disunity and patronage politics. This ‘patronage politics’ refers to a system where political power and resources are distributed based on personal relationships and loyalty, often leading to corruption and inequality. This system perpetuates the elite’s power and further marginalizes the ‘masses.’ The implications of this system are far-reaching, as it not only concentrates power and resources in the hands of a few but also perpetuates a cycle of poverty and inequality among the ‘masses.’

When he wrote his books, Prof. Agoncillo shocked the world when he went against the traditions of looking at history by adapting a distinctly nationalist point of view, especially about the Philippine Revolution of 1896, as a “revolt of the masses” against foreign powers with a coopted local elite that “created systems of domination and subjugation” within the country. He believed that the Western point of view had blurred the Filipinos’ vision of one’s national identity and consciousness. He never wavered in his thesis that colonialism was the main culprit, why great divisions existed among the people, and why colonialism was a dividing, not a unifying, force that kept the country under conditions of underdevelopment. If only the Filipinos were allowed to develop independently, without colonial interference, would things have been different today?

In his classes, he required students to read HIS books like “The History of the Filipino People” (1960), “Revolt of the Masses” (1956), Malolos: The Crisis of the Republic (1960), and “The Writings and Trials of Bonifacio” (1963). I was a proud student of a great National Scientist and University Professor. I had told my classmates then that if this were how Prof. Agoncillo taught, even if we did not come to class, we would still learn just by reading diligently.

In hindsight, I read his book ‘The History of the Filipino People,’ which became our textbook, and the succeeding batches of students scrambled to get to his ‘privileged’ class every semester. This ‘privileged’ class was not just a regular history class but a unique opportunity to learn directly from a renowned historian like Prof. Agoncillo.  It was from his books that I first learned about the debates on the concept of nationhood that evolved as a result of colonialization, about how he challenged the narrative that Ferdinand Magellan ‘discovered’ the Philippines by saying that such wording gave a signal of a prevailing ‘Eurocentric historical interpretation’ because, in truth, the islands and their inhabitants have been existing long before Magellan reached our shores. I learned how colonizers can effectively impose meanings, definitions, and interpretations that may be true because they have the local elites to spread these around through public channels.

More than five decades had passed since I was a freshman when my mind was a blank canvas ready to be filled. Over the years, I’ve learned and unlearned, and one thing has become clear: if we want to heal our divided country and people, we must revive the spirit of nationalism. We must ensure equitable distribution of economic resources, democratize the political system, and empower the people- not just a call to action but a source of inspiration for a better future.