Reflections on Marcos

Reflections on Marcos

FERDINAND AND IMELDA MARCOS deplorably enriched themselves during their years of power and damaged the cause of freedom, but a few reservations need to be stated regarding the widespread glee now being exhibited over their exposure and embarrassment.

First of all, Marcos made a major contribution to the peaceful transition in the Philippines, leaving without a bloodbath or a civil war. He certainly could have musterd forces loyal to him and either prevailed or gone down shooting. Instead, he went through with his inauguration as president, thus preserving a sense of legality, and then, by leaving, resigned de facto. Daniel Ortega will not go so quietly. To get Allende out, the opposition had to bombard and then storm the Moneda Palace.

The Marcoses and their cronies cared more for the trappings of power than for its reality. Ferdinand Marcos entirely lacked a repressive apparatus on the Stalinist model, such as obtains in Cuba and Nicaragua. That is why he proved so vulnerable in the end. He was not a "strongman" but a weak man. Ask Lech Walesa about the difference between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" regimes.

The Marcos loot, if such it proves to be, will be subject to adjudication. Rhetorical overskill and humiliation will be counterproductive politically. In the future, one or another such figure will face a crisis that will be resolvable only by his departure. It may well be in the U.S. interest that departure appear reasonably attractive to him. Persecution of Marcos now will simply narrow our policy options in that future contingency. It is time to cool it, and behave like a reasonable host.

COPYRIGHT 1986 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning