Changed

Those of a certain age find it hard to reconcile with the fact that the Edsa Revolution happened 32 years ago. The world changed much during that period – although the personal and political divides rooted in those years might persist to this day.

An overwhelming majority of Filipinos alive today were born after that watershed event. Those who actually lived through the period of dictatorship and fought the perilous battles to see democracy restored are now a pitiful minority. The consequences of that demographic shift have yet to fully sink in.

Those of my generation wonder why the things that animated us then do not seem to impress our children (much less our grandchildren) today. We should not. What was lived experience for us is accessible to younger Filipinos only as historical account. All the traumas that shaped our lives come to them merely as stories fathers tell.

The historical distance between today and that watershed event is widened beyond the years. From the ’90s, what we call the Information Revolution intervened to reshape how our young apprehend the world. Our young, as a consequence, know more about things happening abroad than about things that happened in the past.

When I served on the Edsa People Power Commission, we had long discussions about how we can make the young more familiar with the event. On hindsight, that was a futile concern. As the years pass, the Edsa Revolution impacts less on the lives and concerns of Filipinos.

Understandably, the 32nd anniversary of the Edsa Revolution will be markedly marginal. Those who actually stood before the tanks at Edsa number less and less. The passions have faded. The lines of political differentiation matter less and less.

Over the past decade or so, the commemoration has become much more of a chore. Local governments had to be pressured to mobilize delegations to populate the event. The routines were tiring. Only Fidel Ramos seems to have retained the enthusiasm for doing this year after year.

The disinterest must have worsened since the “yellows” became objects of ridicule or vilification. Never has the “yellow” narrative been as seriously challenged as it has been the past two years.

For an increasing number, the Edsa Revolution produced only ineffectual rule that allowed oligarchic influence to be magnified. That is the new, emerging orthodoxy about Edsa and it comes well supplied with illustrative cases.

When the remains of the late president Ferdinand E. Marcos was allowed to be interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, there the “yellows” were indignant. But the political leadership was not impressed with their indignation.

In the 2016 elections, Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. proved the name is no longer burdened by past characterization. He nearly won as vice president (and still might win if the recount proves he did).

Most people using the congested Edsa realize commemoration festivities are underway only because traffic flow is snarled. This year, fortunately, the main activities will be held on a Sunday. The anniversary of the Edsa Revolution is still proclaimed a special holiday. Perhaps in the near future it will cease to be.

The waning of Edsa’s sway over our national conversation is not necessarily a bad thing.

Edsa’s legacy has been cynically exploited for partisan purposes over the years. Its icons have been appropriated by clans and factions who play the political game. By now, it has become a heavily polluted legacy.

Pastor Saycon, current member of the Edsa People Power Commission, assured the “yellows” they were still welcome at the People Power Monument where ceremonies are usually held. Of course they are. They may wear yellow shirts, because that was what was worn during the uprising.

But they should leave their arrogance at home. They should not, as Jim Paredes did last year, shoo away attendees who might hold political convictions different from theirs. The essential virtue of the democracy we won back 32 years ago was pluralism.

As history evolves, there will be less and less practical value in commemorating the Edsa Revolution. It is no longer the fountainhead of the political virtues we need to thrive in a new age. There are other events we may plumb for the virtues we might want to inculcate in our young.

What we might need to do is to institute a stronger civics program in our educational system. Such a program will improve the next generation’s appreciation for their rights as well as their responsibilities to the community.

We do not need personality cults. All the personalities who inhabit our hall of heroes are flawed.

What we do need to do is to develop our young so that they become both analytical as well as practical citizens. They must be taught to be self-reliant and competitive, informed as well as critical. They must understand that in order to be functional individuals they need to be people of good judgment.

The new world we live in, after all, is a world of sovereign citizens. Their talents need not be bound by political boundaries or historically inherited jurisdictions. Sovereign citizens may participate in wealth creation anywhere in the world and pit their talents against global benchmarks.

We need to educate our young in the essential virtue of productivity. In a world of open competition, those who are incapable of producing anything will perish.

The challenges we need to meet today are brought about by climate change and overpopulation. The virtues we need to survive must be adjusted accordingly.