Almost a third of the seventeenth century, prior to the birth of Jose Rizal, constituted the history of the French Revolution. The great ideas of the French Revolution like equality, liberty, and fraternity were concepts that were antithetical to the worldview engendered by the feudal order predominant during the Spanish rule. Under this rule, there were two major contending classes that shaped society: few feudal lords that controlled the land and the vast numbers of serfs or peasants that tilled the land for a pittance. The conflict between these two classes gave birth to the ideas of the French Revolution; and thereafter, influenced the history and worldview during the time of Rizal. Even Andres Bonifacio himself read and studied the French Revolution from which he got the clandestine conduct of the Katipunan. Bonifacio was a follower of Rizal.
In the same column, Ambeth Ocampo argued that “what Constantino conveniently left out are that Rizal was considered a hero in his lifetime; that he was an honorary president of the Katipunan; that his picture was displayed during Katipunan meetings; and that his name was one of the passwords of the Katipunan. Then of course, the annual commemoration of Rizal’s death each year in December 30 was started by Aguinaldo’s shortlived First Philippine Republic in 1898 (before the American colonial period and continues to our day).”
Jose Maria Sison, a known leader of the revolutionary movement in the Philippines from 1968 up to the present, also expressed some crucial points regarding the matter. If I am not mistaken in my grasp of it, we cannot judge the ideas of Jose Rizal out of the context since doing this will be unfair. The ideas of Rizal exposed the ills of Spanish colonial rule. Rizal’s reformism prepared the condition and set the stage for the revolution to grow.
by Levy Abad
The fresh ideas from abroad during the time of Jose Rizal cannot be anything but the ideas coming from the revolution in France and the American Revolution, which was also inspired by the former. According to the essay of Elmer Ordonez, Rizal’s readings, as well as those of the ilustrados at the time, included Zola’s Germinal and other Anarchist texts. He furthered that Rizal read a lot of French Literature and particularly liked Alexandre Dumas’ Three Musketeers and Count of Monte Cristo. Rizal also read Moliere, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Napoleon’s memoirs, in addition to his readings of the lives of the Presidents of the United States, Morga’s Sucessos de las Islas Filipinas, Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, Wandering Jew by Eugene Sue, Beaumarchais’ Barber of Seville, and Marriage of Figaro, which were considered dangerous works and subversive in nature during Rizal’s time. (Reference: The Books that Jose Rizal Read and How It Shaped His Life–Totoy Batotoy)
In Rizal’s second novel, El Filibusterismo, the frustrated reformist Ibarra returns in the guise of Simoun, the Jeweller–what Simon calls the “liberal reformer who became an ‘anarchist’ or “Putschist.” The concept of a Marxist Leninist revolutionary was not developed yet. (“Rizal and the Literature of the Left” by Elmer Ordonez, Manila Times, Dec. 29, 2007)
Rizal was born on June 19, 1861, in a country ruled by Spain. The economy during this time was characterized by feudalism, vast tracks of land solely under the control of a handful of feudal lords. Concepts like suffrage (elections), separation of power, separation of church and state were non-existent. We have to take note that prior to the Revolution of 1896, two hundred revolts occurred with the intention of breaking the feudal chains. All these concepts came into fruition after the Revolution of 1896 when U.S. colonial rule took over and introduced a distorted version of the ideas of enlightenment to consolidate their colonial rule by using concepts of democracy, republicanism as a facade and reactionary violence to crush the continuing resistance of the Filipino people.
What was the role and significance of the Revolution of 1896? After 365 years of Spanish colonialism and successive revolts, Filipinos finally decided to organize the Katipunan as a result of the martyrdom of Rizal on December 30, 1896. Rizal was accused of being the founder of the Katipunan, or Brotherhood of Revolutionaries. In the column of Ambeth Ocampo, “Reform and Revolution,” he explained that “the December 15, 1896 Manifesto was used against Rizal both by the Spaniards who condemned him to death for inspiring the revolution, and the pro-Bonifacio groups in our day, is not read in full. Rizal was not against the revolution but felt, rightly so, that it was premature.”
He continued that “Rizal is branded a mere ‘reformist’ because they have not read his letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt from Geneva on June 19,1887, his 26th birthday, that read in part: ‘I assure you that I have no desire to take part in conspiracies which seem to me very premature and risky. But if the government drives us to the brink, that is to say, when no other hope remains but seek our destruction in war, when the Filipinos would prefer to die rather than endure their misery any longer, then I will also become a partisan of violent means. The choice of peace or destruction is in the hands of Spain, because it is a clear fact, known to all that we are patient, excessively patient and peaceful, mild, unfeeling, etc. But everything ends in this life, there is nothing eternal in the world and that refers also to our patience.’”
Prior to this, Rizal was active in the reform movement abroad. He was a member of La Solidaridad, an organization founded in Spain on December 13, 1888, composed of Filipino liberals and students, aimed to increase Spanish awareness of the needs of its colony, the Philippines. Rizal was also a founder of La Liga Filipina (1892), a progressive organization in the homefront with the purpose of involving the people directly in the reform movement. Both initiatives were designed to be a machinery of the reform movement. The Spanish authorities, threatened by these initiatives, seized on Jose Rizal to punish him for his ideas. We know what happened next, Rizal was martyred and the armed revolt known as the Cry of Balintawak in August 1896 ensued under the leadership of Andres Bonifacio.
Rizal on Reform and Revolution (part 3 of 4)
FILIPINO JOURNAL LEVY ABAD
by Levy Abad
What were the tendencies that arose out of Jose Rizal’s ideas? The reform movement that he led exposed the abuses committed during the Spanish colonial and feudal rule. Aside from writing novels, he was also a part of the publications La Solidaridad and La Liga Filipina. This clearly proved Rizal’s involvement in the reform movement. According to Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay, in his work “Jose Rizal and the Revolution: Revisiting Renato Constantino’s ‘Veneration Without Understanding'”:
“Another example of Rizal’s reformism can be found in his manifesto where he emphasized the necessity of education in the achievement of liberties. He also believed that reforms, to be fruitful, must come from above; and that those that come from below are shaky, irregular, and uncertain. Rizal’s weakness was his failure to fully trust his people. His idea that change should come from above is the clearest proof that he is kind of detached from what is happening on the ground. He repudiated the revolution because he thought that reforms, to be successful, should come from above.”
Notwithstanding these weaknesses, the reform movement became the spark that started the prairie fire. The problem with freedom is that, once the people get a taste of it, it develops its own dynamics and grows beyond the control of the regime. It has a life of its own. So, when the call for revolt was made, the masses embraced it. If Rizal cautioned the members of the reform movement not to engage in armed revolt, ordinary people like Andres Bonifacio who bore the full weight of the feudal rule of Spain would have reacted in a different way, the revolutionary way. The more intense the experience of oppression, the more the revolutionary tendency intensifies. To substantiate this, I would like to quote from a book by Renato Constantino, entitled A Past Revisited, (page 159):
“At first, the Liga was quite active. Bonifacio, in particular, exerted great effort to organize chapters in various districts of Manila. A few months later, however, the Supreme Council of the Liga dissolved the Society. The reformist leaders found out that most of the popular councils which Bonifacio had organized were no longer willing to send funds to the Madrid propagandists (assimilationists) because they, like Bonifacio, had become convinced that peaceful agitation for reforms was futile. Afraid that the more radical rank and file members might capture the organization and be unwilling to involve themselves in an enterprise which would surely invite reprisals from the authorities, the leaders of the Liga opted for dissolution. The Liga membership split into two groups: the conservatives formed the Cuerpo de Compromisarios, which pledged continued support for La Solidaridad; while the radicals led by Bonifacio devoted themselves to a new and secret society, the Katipunan, which Bonifacio organized on the very day that Rizal was deported to Dapitan.”
It is impossible to go back in time and measure the sincerity of those who joined the revolution. Some authors claim that the reason Rizal distanced himself with the initiative was because of the insincerity of some leaders. Unarguably, revolution was able to drive out the Spaniards.
Purity of heart was good but immaterial. Oppression was what fueled the people to revolt. We must remember that even revolutionaries are human beings, and utopian measuring sticks are useless. Even saints are sinners. Too often, leaders and scholars try to put a framework that will determine when the revolution starts and when they think it should end. The reality is that the implication, effects, or the success and betrayal of the Revolution of 1896 can still be seen and felt up to now.
Reflecting on the writings of Renato Constantino, Rizal’s tendency was the natural offshoot of his status in society since he belonged to the Ilustrado (erudite, learned). The Ilustrados were people whom the Spanish colonial authorities trusted to be their administrators over vast tracts of land or encomiendas. Rizal’s family was well-off. This afforded Jose Rizal and many of his siblings good education, attending the best schools like Letran, UST, and Ateneo. In fact, his family was able to send him abroad to study. The tendency of this class of people was to be cautious and weary of social movements as they might cause instability. They tended to veer towards reformism because they had a lot to lose in the process, although there were a few who transcended their economic background and embraced the struggle of the people wholeheartedly. I would like to think that Jose Rizal was one of them. On the other hand, ordinary people like Andres Bonifacio joined the armed revolt to end their oppression because they got nothing to lose but their bondage.
Rizal on Reform and Revolution (part 4 of 4)
(Unpublished)
by Levy Abad
Bonifacio and other leaders of the Katipunan, together with ranks of the revolutionaries, belong to the left wing tendency of those who adhere to the ideas espoused by Rizal. Upon closer look of the ideas of Jose Rizal, one will find that most of his thoughts on society were essentially heavily tainted by French revolutionary ideas but were also calibrated in such a way that they fit into a reformist frame. We must remember that the French Revolution never happened overnight. It also underwent the same process of where people hoped that the regime could still be changed through peaceable means (Reformism) until the Jacobins (or in our case, the Revolutionaries of 1896) decided to have enough of it when they realized that bondage can no longer be tolerated. This was also exemplified during the Filipinos’ struggle against the dictatorship way back in the 70s. Though it took a shorter time compared to Rizal’s time, the contradictions intensified that culminated in the assassination of Benigno Aquino. His death unified of the opposition forces and became the catalyst that led to the Edsa Uprising.
Jose Rizal’s statement that he has no desire to take part in conspiracies, which seem to him “premature and risky,” is an expression of a disagreement over strategy and tactics of how to steer the revolution. Back in my university days, I always hear this premature and risky advice from reformist activists in the campus. Although they usually say that they agree with the revolutionary calls, when it comes to practice, they say it is not yet time. Perhaps, Rizal never liked the tactic used (as he portrayed it) by Simoun in El Filibusterismo of inciting violence and the insurrectionary / putchist’s persecution of the people to force them to revolt.Elmer Ordoňez in his article, Rizal and the Literatire of the Left, commented that the essays of Epifanio San Juan, one of the leading scholars in Rizal studies, “attempt to recuperate Rizal (appropriated by U.S. colonialism and Ilustrado collaborators in search of a national hero for their Filipino wards) from his perceived apostasy, the December 15 Manifesto, where he abjures the armed revolution. San Juan recalls Recto’s “landmark synthesizing of both revolutionaries’ (Rizal and Bonifacio’s) ‘parallel lives” in 1958. For San Juan, Recto points to a “fatal and unbridgeable dualism which today, our wide-ranging endeavors to integrate history and practice are trying mightily to resolve.” The question again arises as to who benefits from this dualism? What forces in Philippine society may have consciously fanned this dualism to their advantage? My view is that this dualism will last until a social movement that links reform and revolution triumphs and becomes the dominant narrative.
The root of the problem is the persistent maneuver of the interest groups, such as US colonialism to createa disconnect between reform and revolution and make it appear that Rizal is a pacifist through and through, thus turning Rizal into a propaganda tool for social inertia in the face of colonial oppression. The right wing tendency is a clear result of this disconnect. It is the tendency to absolutize reformism that in turn assures the continuation of the survival of the status quo.
Grasping this reality of the revolutionary situation makes one arrive at the proper analysis of Philippine history and what is happening now. All the ills of Philippine society can be traced back to the outcome of the dialectics of the time of Jose Rizal. The way our community thinks on how to achieve social change for our country of origin is also characterized by this tendency. Up to now, people pit Jose Rizal against Andres Bonifacio. They have missed the great lesson of the Revolution of 1896 that the two pillars of Philippine history are representative of a single historical process of the Filipino peoples’ aspiration for freedom. Hence, given all these lessons of history, only a social movement that is able to grasp the dialectics between Rizal and Bonifacio, reform and revolution, will be able to lead the Filipino out of its pre-industrial and agricultural state.
