Otherwise Maladroit

03 March 2000 Reaction Paper: The Philippines A Century Hence

03 March 2000

Reaction Paper: The Philippines A Century Hence

In this article, Rizal ever the reformer, was warning Mother Spain that if it did not ease its stranglehold on the colony it will fly from the coop. Like Machiavelli, whom Rizal frequently cited, he was advising the prince, in this case the Spanish government, how to govern the Philippines. He warned that its oppressive style of administration, wherein the people are not even allowed a free press, would reap sour grapes. With a little sunlight and water, Rizal encouraged, the Philippines would remain under the Spanish wing. However, he clucked, if Spain remains stubborn and medieval in its governance she would be ensuring herself of revolution.

Unlike Machiavelli though, Rizal was advising the foreigner that the other would have abhorred. When Machiavelli wrote his famous treatise on the characteristics of a leader, he was deeply concerned by the foreign mercenaries that were hired to fight for Italian wars. He wisely recognized that a people should fight for their own interests and that a leader should act for his advantage. The Italian Peninsula was torn by mismanagement and intrigue, therefore the Italians must be united by a strong Italian hand. No foreigners involved.

The Philippines is under far different circumstances than the unruly peninsula of Machiavelli's time. One, the colonial government was not indigenous to the archipelago. Two, the Philippines was the colonial booty of the Spanish conquest. Machiavelli advised his prince on how to manage and profit from a victorious annexation. The Philippines is THE annex. It just seems awfully interesting that Rizal was advising the use of Machiavellian principles, which are often viewed as deceitful and uncouth, on the Filipinos.

The problem with Rizal is that sometimes it's hard to know where his loyalties are. He obviously loved the Philippines, but may have felt obligated to Spain for opening the world of knowledge to him. The only sure thing that I could say of Rizal is that he was a pacifist. As long as it could be avoided, bloodshed must be seen as the last resort.

Although he did not actually mention the "Blood Compact Theory", Rizal illustrated the relationship between the natives and the Spanish government as something reminiscent of it. Wherein the indios toiled for the advancement of the Mother Country believing the salvation promised by the first missionaries, but instead was fed disservice and insult. In time, Rizal warned, the people will realize their misfortune of having the lower end of the bargain.

Bonifacio, Jacinto, and Mabini were among those that rationalized the Revolution using the "Blood Compact Theory." This theory reason that the blood compact between Sikatuna and de Legaspi was a formal contract. Wherein, de Legaspi was the representative of the Spanish sovereign, and Sikatuna of the leaders (datus and sultans) of the whole archipelago. It was in the understanding that the Spaniards brought salvation and advancement that the natives agreed to pay tribute and be colonized. However, when the Spanish colonial government brought abuse and maltreatment instead, causing the backwardness and the wretchedness of the natives, the Spaniards were in effect breaching a contract.

Of course the historical accuracy of this theory was stretched to serve the purpose of legitimizing the Revolution. Sikatuna, afterall, was only representative of his tribe and not of all the leaders of the whole archipelago.

Still, it should be noted that Rizal may have seen the relationship between the colonizer and the colony as that of a contract. Since Rizal was the predecessor of Jacinto and Mabini, and allegedly the idol of the fanatic Bonifacio, they may have taken their cue from him.

Rizal had, undoubtedly, a good sense of politics but some of his forecasts were too optimistic. While he ticked off one colonial power after the other, he was rationalizing that the Philippines would be of little interest in the future (which is now our present).

Upon the discovery of Africa, he said, the colonial powers will leap to tear a part of the Dark Continent for themselves. With the ensuing scramble for the vast territories of Africa, moreover China, he was sure that if ever Mother Spain did lose her grip on the archipelago everyone else would probably be too busy. Rizal did mention the Americans and the possibility of it being a colonial power, but if America ever does try to be a colonial power the Europeans will surely beat her back. Rizal did recognize the fighting spirit of the Americans but rationalized that it would be going against its traditions (Rizal was probably alluding to the noble intentions of American doctrines), and that it was too sparsely populated to become a colonizer.

I think it was in the terms of territory that Rizal was basing his opinions. I wonder if he recognized the incoming trends in the views of consumption and production. I wonder if he knew that greed has no limits and that his old world sense of integrity would be lost in the ensuing decades. He most certainly would not be happy.

posted by Otherwise Maladroit @ 5:18 PM