This picture sums up what became of the EDSA Revolution’s Legacy 40 years hence.
It also demonstrates the saying, “there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests.” (attributed to Lord Palmerston of the UK)
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
Those who are noisy on social media and tend to be lumped with the “dilawan” side of politics will say, Marcos Jr. was elected because of social media deception and troll farms. I say that the “offline” parts of society, like the poor, have always preferred Marcos without anyone telling them online; if any method reached them, it’s word of mouth. They or their parents (even grandparents) perceive Marcos Sr. as the heavy-handed dictator who imposed order and led to a generally better state of life in their day. This is what the same demographic sought in Rodrigo Duterte back in 2016. One can say that nostalgia was on the side of the Marcos family.
Yet, some opponents of Marcos point out that an Araneta is Marcos’ wife, and the Araneta family has long been associated with the “dilawans.” The claim is that Marcos is actually a dilawan.
Well, even if that isn’t true, it seems that those you wish to pit as enemies will not be so just because you want it. One’s perception, no matter how smart it seems, is not automatically the truth.
How EDSA ’86 Really Played Out
One thing I had wanted to address is the commonly pushed narrative about EDSA ’86 that the crowd of protesters scared Marcos Sr., into leaving the Palace. This led to the contemporary outrage fad of protests and rallies as the way to combat corruption.
However, closer study of the EDSA ’86 will reveal a different story. Marcos Sr. left because US Senator Paul Laxalt, who had been acting as the US liaison to Marcos, phoned him and told him to “cut and cut cleanly.” It was just another pull of the string by the US under Reagan.
I have seen a lot of reputable opinions saying that people’s protests alone, peaceful or otherwise, don’t lead to regime change. The military and foreign players are often the real pullers of the plug. This is true in other instances such as Tunisia 2011 and Egypt 2013. The news media likes to focus on the street rallies; but the ousting can actually be attributed to the militaries of each country withdrawing support from the sitting regime. In another case, Ugandan dictator Idi Amin abandoned his dictatorship because he simply lost the Ugandan-Tanzanian War. In our case, part of the military turning against Marcos Sr. was one of the signs for the US to decide that it was time to pull Marcos out.
Another factoid often forgotten or buried is that Enrile and Ramos were about to launch a coup d’etat that time. People were called up by Cardinal Sin to protect the perpetrators of a botched coup, and they likely didn’t know it. I could argue that EDSA ’86 was the coup that succeeded, while the later coups like that one in 1987 and 1989 continued the spirit, but failed.
Overthrow Faddists are the Real Enemy
The “leftists” and overthrow supporters rail at people who don’t want to take sides, using lines like “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor” (Desmond Tutu; they’ll reword it as “if you don’t side with my protests, you are on the side of the oppressor”). But that gaslight is just immature knee-jerk reactionism and instigative propaganda. Besides, not everyone who claims to be oppressed is actually oppressed.
And that is the lesson of life: you can’t divide people, ideas, and sectors of society into “sides.” Each individual is a bearer of interests that must be respected. Groups that are formed are not diametric opposites of another. There are many sides to a coin. Undoing individuality and force-collecting them to form “sides” is not an act of good. It’s an act of totalitarianism.
In fact, the division of people into two “sides” has the intention of pitting them against each other and instigating conflict. It does not have morally good intentions, but is part of selfish ambitions.
While this perspective I’ve given may significantly reduce the meaning of EDSA ’86 for some, there is still a lesson to pick up: that overthrowing dictators or perceived enemies will not automatically lead to a better world. Yet that is what leftists, communists, woke, and similar want others to believe. They just want overthrow without a plan on what comes after.
They may argue, no, you don’t understand, you don’t know how to divide dictators and fascists from the “oppressed” correctly. But they have been marketing a lie ever since to get people to riot in the streets so they can take advantage of it. Instead of that, focus on real action like getting your own ideas to policy-makers or having your privately funded program of civic action, among other possible actions. Overthrow itself should be reserved for the really serious cases (like a communist takeover).
- EDSA 40 years after: Overthrow and “Leftist” Ideals Don’t Work - February 25, 2026
- Deterministic Ideas like White Fragility that fuel today’s Instigation movements must be fought - February 12, 2026
- Killing “Fascists” will never save the world - January 20, 2026