Sunday, October 25, 2009

JOSE RIZAL AND POLITICAL MODERNIZATION: IDEAS THAT LED TO REVOLUTION AND INDEPENDENCE

JOSE RIZAL AND POLITICAL MODERNIZATION: IDEAS THAT LED TO REVOLUTION AND INDEPENDENCE

by Mr. Linber allan Cortez Eugenio

(will be included in my upcoming book about Rizal with co-authors)


Modernization comes with so many aspects. As defined by Samuel Huntington in his controversial book The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order, Modernization involves industrialization, urbanization, increasing levels of literacy, education, wealth, and social mobilization, and a more complex and diversified occupational structures.[1] All these aspects can be attained if there is a social institution that will adhere to the most supreme kind of modernity—political modernization. Political modernization can be regarded as the most important aspect of holistic modernity for it controls the flow of social, economic, cultural, and technological dynamics. To give exemplification, the United States of America, a colony before of European states—Great Britain, France and Spain, achieved the title as world’s sole hegemon because of its political revolutions or innovations.


Political modernization is a concept in Political Science, Sociology, Anthropology and History wherein societies, peoples, or individuals are moving towards another chapter of social transformation. It is synonymous with the concept of revolution wherein certain forces are opting for changes. The role of political modernization posits a greater importance in social dynamics. Any dominant or influential political idea or theory can affect the social system since the society is considered as a body politic. This idea can ignite certain movements in the society and individuals will find ways to achieve the promises of an idea; it can be the formation of pressure groups or interest groups, lobbyism, creation of a certain law, regime change or charter change, utilization of technology, and rebellion as the last resort. These movements are social dynamics that provide effects to the way of living, on technology, on culture, and on religious orientations and organization. To prove, there are a lot of historical events that changed the social system and some of them are enumerated as follows: First, ideas of socialism and communism brought Russia and china to regime change and the bipolarization of world order (Cold War). Second, debates and ideas regarding the separation of Church and State and reformation weakened the power of the Pope in European politics. Third, the idea of democracy in the United States brought certain socio-political reforms in France. Fourth, ideas of liberty, democracy, and freedom brought pro-independence movements in the Philippines, and other colonies. Fifth, the idea of satyagraha of Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi forced Great Britain to give independence to India. Lastly, ideas on terrorism changed the course of international system

However, political modernization is usually linked with rebellion which became so inevitably used interchangeably. Nevertheless, the concept of political modernization and rebellion, though related, is neither congruent nor synonymous, in fact, they are different. As discussed earlier, political modernization is the process of reforming what is ought to be reformed whereas rebellion is an action when reforms cannot be achieved through other means like lobbying, dialogues, and legislation. Thus, political modernization is not congruent with rebellion since the latter is only one of the sub-processes of the process of the former and that political modernization doesn’t always mean rebellion.

Furthermore, according to UP Professor Dr. Remigio Agpalo, ‘political modernization [is] one of the revolutionary processes in human history.’[2] This political modernization includes many processes with common sub-processes. It is a system of social movement that has stages to meet its ends. As Dr. Agpalo posits:

‘One of these is the politics of unification and integration. This involves the unification and integration of fragmented or separate small political units. Another is nation-building. This involves the development of sense of nationhood; the construction of national symbols, such as the national flag and the national anthem; and the development of a principle of legitimacy to legitimize the political elite, the regime, and the social order. A third is the twin processes of social mobilization and political mobilization. Social mobilization involves the increase in magnitude of certain social indicators, such as literacy, communication system and means of transportation, urbanization, and the like. Political mobilization involves the increase in the magnitude of certain political indicators, such as the number of the electorate, interest groups, and political parties. And a fourth is institutionalization of the political practices correlated to the political ideology or political formula of the political system.’[3]

With this elucidation of the concept of political modernization, let us discuss the role of Jose Rizal in the dawn of political modernization in the Philippines.


II

Living in times of violence, injustice, and sorrow is difficult. During the age of colonization in Southeast Asia, natives experienced great atrocities and inequalities from their colonists that demoralized and degraded their dignity and well-being. Though European colonists are at the dawn of modernity at those times, their policies against their colonies are reluctant in terms of political modernization and enlightenment; an implicit action to retain their possessions and put to status quo or to develop their grandeur and hegemony. Thus, it is a realization of Thomas Hobbes’ theory that a ‘man’s life is poor, nasty, brutish and short.’[4] A man’s life is miserable because of the ultimate power of the elite. According to Gaetano Mosca, In all societies – from societies that are very underdeveloped and have largely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies – two classes of people appear – a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all of the political functions, monopolizes power, and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more less legal, now more or less arbitrary and violent.’[5]

In the Philippines, Thomas Hobbes and Gaetano Mosca’s philosophy are evident during the Spanish period wherein Filipinos lived under the autocratic rule of the Spanish government. The elites (either political or social) are all Spaniards, mestizos, and religious officials. Some major laws imposed are neither judicious nor egalitarian for the Filipinos. Spanish oligarchy and the Roman Catholic Church possessed irreversible power and authority that became their source of wealth and, on one hand, sorrow for the Filipinos. Education system was passé, censored, and limited to the privileged few. Freedom of expression was only an imagination for the Filipinos. With these, modernization is quite impossible and, by all means, had no chance of achieving it. However, one of the greatest sons of the Philippines realized that despite the complexities and agonies of Filipino living during his time, modernization can come into reality and already in influx.

Dr. Jose Rizal (1861-1896), who lived in time wherein intellectuals of native descent are prohibited, provided the idea of modernization and created philosophies that soon after will contribute to the tangibility of social changes and political development. Though Rizal belongs to a principalia, a social strata living inside warm and comfortable coats with superfluous graces, he had seen the sufferings of his fellowmen against the repressive rule of the Spaniards that gave him the courage and strength to study and accumulate ideas for political reforms and social development. He showed popular support rather than elitism. In his studies in Europe, he learned the ideals of the modernizing society and its farfetched scenario of political maturity and freedom as compared to the Philippines. It was more likely of a world with two worlds. He was exposed to the writings of famous political writers like Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Voltaire and some radical novels like Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. He witnessed liberal movements inside the heart of the Spanish regalia which he had never seen before in the Philippines. Academic freedom, competitive education system astonished him. With all these encounters, he had formulated and pioneered the philosophy of political modernization in the Philippines. In fact, he is regarded as the ‘most cultured of the reformists.”[6]

Rizal had seen political modernization in the Philippines through his comparative and analytic observations. In his salutation to the victory of Juan Luna and Felix Resurrecion Hidalgo in the 1884 National Exposition of Fine Arts in Madrid, Spain, he hinted an idea that changes are already taken in place in the Philippines. In his salutation, he mentioned:

“ the patriarchal era in the Philippines is waning. The deeds of her illustrious sons are no longer wasted away at home. The oriental chrysalis is leaving the cocoon. The morrow of a long day for those regions is announced in brilliant tints and rose-colored dawns, and that race, fallen into lethargy during the historic nigh while the sun illumines other continents, again awakens, moved by the electric impact that contact with Western peoples produces, and she demands light, life, the civilization that at one time they bequeath her, thus confirming the eternal laws of constant evolution, of change, of periodicy, of progress.”[7]

Rizal’s salutation, though poetic, provided two ideas that manifest modernity. First, the dynamism of society and the recognition of Spain to the wisdom and talents of the Filipino natives are starting. Accordingly, Luna and Hidalgo’s victory is an indirect political momentum. Luna and Hidalgo not only gained influence over Spanish jurors indicating co-equal footing of the Filipinos and other European contestants; but also they have presented the realistic view of the problems in the Philippines that gained Spanish artists’ attention and knowledge through Luna and Hidalgo’s paintings.

Secondly, the patriarchal rule of Spain is waning. Patriarchal governance (the absolutist rule) of Spain during his time starts to weaken due to certain forces that surround Spain. The 16th up to the early 17th centuries, Spanish hegemony is almost immaculate. But when the Spanish Armada received its defeat over the British navy of Queen Elizabeth I, Spain’s clout started to grow fainter. Spain became inferior in terms of naval power against Great Britain (which celebrated their title as the ‘Mistress of the Sea’). The doctrine of laissez-faire market replaced the mercantilist system of economy forced Spain to open the Philippines to world trade and end its isolation. Even more, the British sojourn in Manila opened avenues for comparative analysis in terms of government by local scholars and the entry of some liberalist ideas. And, the growing opposition of the natives against agrarian policies of the Spanish government indicates dynamism and clamor for social reforms.

Though Rizal had already observed these developments, his works provided the most important part in history that brought the Philippines to social transformation and mobilization. He is the process of the subprocesses of political modernization as he laid foundations for the Filipinos to know the problems and to address these problems through his two famous novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. In his Noli Me Tangere, he presented the social ills in the Philippines that seeks remedy. Crisostomo Ibarra, the prime character of the novel, who, upon searching for the truth on what really happened or the real cause of his father’s death, had seen several social cancers—injustice, social hypocrisy, corruption, passé education system, and frialocracia—which some are mentioned earlier. Injustice is the centerfold of a colonial system wherein laws are always for the advantage of the colonists and against the natives as experienced by Ibarra, Sisa, Crispin, and Basilio. Social hypocrisy prevailed during that time wherein Filipinos are finding so many ways to escape the miseries of their fellowmen. Dona Consolacion and Dona Victorina de Espadana are some of the social hypocrites mentioned in the novel. Corruption in the Philippines evolved during the Spanish Era provided income for the powerful and losses for the natives. A passé education system maintained a poor society and deprived from self determination and success. However, frialocracia was seen as the most severe disease that must be healed. Frialocracia provided all the dilemmas of the Filipino society since the power of the Roman Catholic Church extended from ecclesiastic up to the temporal system of the society. The Church is potent to intervene in governmental affairs and has the power to impose compulsory dues to the people. Even more, the Holy Bible is regarded as a heretic and rebellious book if read without the assistance of friars. Nevertheless, Noli Me Tangere deeply criticized the wrongdoings and abuses of the Roman Catholic Church that caused the malaise of the natives. Its sequel, El Filibusterismo, provided the reaction regarding these problems. Though it is a radical sequel of the novel in which Ibarra turning Simoun who wanted revenge through terror, we can observe that Rizal completely discourages rebellion when he frustrate the planned bombing of Simoun to the mansion. Though rebellion is one of the sub-processes of political modernization, there are still other options to consider. Rizal doesn’t believe that the Philippines, then, is ready for rebellion because the society lacks a particular element—unity. Inspired by the the French Revolution, unity, for Jose Rizal, is the most important element that a social movement must have in order to meet their ends. Consequently, Rizal pleads for unity and that since there’s still no unity, education is regarded as the probable solutions to achieve reforms. In the words of Teodoro Agoncillo, “it is obvious that Rizal was not against revolution in itself, but was against it only in the absence of preparation and arms on the part of the rebels.”[8]

Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo became the eye-opener to the Filipinos that oppression of the Spanish government is not only the real dilemma, but also the natives as well. In order to realize modernization and its success, social transformation is necessary prior to any peaceful or violent movement a society will partake. However, social transformation needs political might since a society cannot unite on its own, it needs leaders—leaders with strong political will. However, in the absence thereof, Rizal wrote initial steps for social transformation through social mobilization.

In his thought about the social mobilization in the Philippines, he advocated the welfare of women and children. In fact, he can also be regarded as a Feminist in the field of Politics. In his Letters to the Young Women of Malolos, he advocated the idea for Filipina empowerment. The Philippine social structure during the Spanish period—and even during Pre-Spanish—dictates that women are inferior to men, confined only to housekeeping and strict religious observance. However, in this treaty, Rizal empowered women by encouraging them to study and defend their rights as humans co-equal with men; and as coequal between Spanish and Filipinos. Furthermore:

‘The duties that woman has to perform in order to deliver the people from suffering are of no little importance, but be they as they may, they will not be beyond the strength and stamina of the Filipino people. The power and good judgment of the woman of the Philippines are well known, and it is because of this that she has been hoodwinked, and tied, and rendered pusillanimous; and now her enslavers rest at ease, because so long as they can keep the Filipina mother a slave, so long will they be able to make slaves of her children. The cause of the backwardness of Asia lies in the fact that there the women are ignorant, are slaves; while Europe and America are powerful because there the women are free and well educated and endowed with lucid intellect and a strong will.’[9]

Rizal envisioned reforming the way of thinking of Filipinos. He tried to challenge the belief system of the Filipinos infected of Spanish’ ethnocentric and discriminative system. In his Letters to the Young Women of Malolos, Rizal thought of the emasculating tyranny in the Philippines was because of cowardice and lack of unity of the Filipinos. Furthermore, he believes that ‘all men are born equal, naked, without bonds. God did not create man to be a slave; nor did he endow him with intelligence to have him hoodwinked, or adorn him with reason to have him deceived by others. It is not fatuous to refuse to worship one's equal, to cultivate one's intellect, and to make use of reason in all things. Fatuous is he who makes a god of him who makes brutes of others, and who strives to submit to his whims all that is reasonable and just.’[10]

Another aspiration of Jose Rizal to reform the belief system of the Filipinos is embodied in his Annotations to the Sucesos delas Islas Filipinas of Antonio Morga. He annotated and corrected certain errors in the accounts of Morga about the history of the Philippines. Rizal dedicated this book for the analysis of the true history of the Philippines. In his introduction, he states:

“In the Noli Me Tangere I (Rizal) began the sketch of the present state of our fatherland; the effect which my attempt produced made me understand that before continuing to unveil to your eyes other succeeding pictures, I must first make known the past, so that it may be possible to judge better the present and measure the path which has been traversed during three decades.”[11]

Rizal lobbied to the Spanish government to seek for reforms. As a member of the Propaganda Movement, he lobbied for the assimilation or provincehood of the Philippines to Spain because of his belief that it is the only way Filipinos can achieve equality. Though heavily criticized by skeptics questioning their nationalism, Rizal reacted that provincehood is the only way since he believe that rebellion will not succeed due to lack of unity and technology it may require. Spain is very powerful and more advanced; the Filipinos neither have sufficient money nor armaments for fighting. This vision of Rizal can also be traced in his A Don Ricardo Carcinero wherein he stated:

“…And even if from your view
Inert and mute and cold,
Unlearned in gestures great
They know not graciously to correspond
Do not your love to them deny
As they are poor and simple folk
They do not have an eloquent voice
To express their tenderness
And in their sad misfortune
The less they speak, the more they feel.

That our greatest dream
Is that in this strange land
You find the same old Spain
With the selfsame sun and sky;
That our soil be yours
Like the cradle of your childhood;
Teach her with tender grace
Labor and Justice,
And that if the land is not Galicia
Our love is still like the Mino.”[12]

In Dr. Agpalo’s analysis, La Indolencia de los Filipinos and El Filibusterismo provided another ‘prophetic’ explanation of the Filipino society. In La Indolencia de los Filipinos, Rizal noted that ‘a man in the Philippines is only an individual; he is not a member of the nation. He is forbidden and denied the right of association, and is therefore weak and sluggish.’[13] But in El Filibusterismo, he said that ‘tomorrow we shall be citizens of the Philippines.’[14] It posits an idea that Filipinos may be inferior or voiceless, but there will come a time that the so-called ‘indios’ will achieve independence. It forms an idea of social integration and nationalism that caught the attention of the Filipinos during his time and became one of the guiding principles of the pro-independence movements.

III

Rizal provided the ideas of modernization to the Philippines. In reaction, his works ignited certain movements that changed the fate of the Philippines. He ignited the consciousness of the Filipinos, decreased regionalism, and shook the feet of the Spanish regalia. Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Aguinaldo, Apolinario Mabini, and Emilio Jacinto became the sub-processes of the process did by Jose Rizal—Rizal laid the ideas, they provided action. Though Rizal was reluctant for a sudden rebellion which he regarded during his time as premature, his works and execution struck Filipinos’ hearts and heated their anger to the Spanish maladministration.

Today however, much has to be done. Rizal’s ideas on political modernization are still far from reality. Corruption and elitism is still rampant in our social and political spectrum; reforms to education system are still far from what other countries have; the wall that dichotomizes the church and state is still weak and controversial that often led to misunderstanding and division; regionalism, terrorism, stereotyping and rebellion indicates lack of unity and fraternity; and lastly, increasing poverty rate which hinders social justice, development, and social equity. Renato Constantino’s call for new heroes is necessary to actualize what Rizal aspires. Today is a new era, “we need new heroes who can help us solve our pressing problems. We cannot rely on Rizal alone”[15] for he only open our eyes. Just like a body system, eyes needs hands to get what he want.

The ideas of Jose Rizal on political modernization must set as an inspiration to the Filipino people to achieve a better state. He does not suggest a utopian society, but aspires to have a country with self-determination and robust integrity. As an independent state, our unity, sense of equality, nationalism must be developed to make the Philippines a strong state with a strong society.
[1] Samuel Huntington. The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order ( New York: Simon &Schuster Paperbacks, 1996) p. 68
[2] Remigio Agpalo’s Jose Rizal: Filipino National Hero and His Ideas of Political Modernization in Remigio Agpalo. Adventures in Political Science (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. 1996) p. 45
[3] Ibid.
[4] Thomas Hobbes. Of Man
[5] Gaetano Mosca. The Ruling Class (1939)
[6] Teodoro Agoncillo. History of the Filipino People, 8th Edition (Quezon City: Garotech Publishing. 1990) p.138
[7] Jose Rizal. Political and Historical Writings (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1964) p. 18
[8] Teodoro Agoncillo. Ibid. p. 168
[9] Jose Rizal. Letters to the Young Women of Malolos. 1889 in http://pages.prodigy.net/manila_girl/rizal/malolos.htm
[10] Ibid.
[11] Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas por el Dr. Antonio de Morga, obra publicada en Mejico el ano de 1609, nuevamente sacada a luz yanotada por Jose Rizal y precedida de un prologo del Prof. Fernando Blumentritt (Paris, Garnier, 1890) p. v. also cited in John Schumacher SJ. The Creation of A Filipino Consciousness, The Making of the Revolution: The propaganda movement 1880-1895 (Quezon city: Ateneo de Manila Press.) pp. 219-220
[12] A Don Ricardo Carcinero, an eulogy dedicated to the Political-military commander of Dapitan on his birthday (translated by J. Ma. Hernandez from the Spanish original) in Jose Ma. Hernandez, Esteban A. de Ocampo, and Zosimo C. Ella. Jose Rizal: The Reformer (Quezon City: Bustamante Press Inc. 1958) p. 122
[13] Jose Rizal. Political and Historical Writings. p. 262
[14] Jose Rizal. El Filibusterismo (Ghent: F. Mayer- Van Loo, 1891) translated by Charles Derbyshire (Manila: Philippine Education Co., 1981) p. 241
[15] Renato Constantino. Veneration Without Understanding. Third National Rizal Lecture. University of the Philippines. December 30 1969

No comments:

Post a Comment