a. One of the biggest sources of anger with the Marcos administration was the perception of widespread corruption and fraud which plagued the governmental process. Aquino and her revolution made campaign promises to “clean up the corruption and cronyism for which Ferdinand Marcos’ was famous” (Niu 93) though once she herself had won office, the revolutionary vigor and fervor of her campaign somewhat reversed themselves. In addition to the above policy positions which she made which notably did not help the Filipino people, she herself soon capitulated to the same system of corruption and deception which caused the Filipino people to suffer. During the 1988 congressional elections, “Aquino’s party…scored overwhelming victory” (Kreof 637) in
…show more content…
Following the protests and complaints “NAMFREL (National Citizens Movement for Free Elections) whose denunciations of the outcome of the presidential ‘snap’ elections of February 7, 1986 had been a major factor in the downfall of Marcos and the subsequent legitimization of Aquino, declared within days of the May 11 poll that Aquino’s party “may have cheated in the elections” (Kreof 637). In the end, after galvanizing a revolution, the figures of power within that revolution adopted the same characteristics which those supporting the revolution had given them power to resist. The administration was only better than Marcos in the sense that it, for a time, maintained a better façade of honesty and sincerity. The Aquino administration enacted certain laws and policies, not out of a genuine cosmopolitan desire to learn from cultural differences and enhance political processes through global influence, but rather because it was necessary to maintain power. They were better than the Marcos regime because they had to be, because they were a product of a revolution fed up with the same fraud and dishonesty which they themselves now practiced. The positive practices of the Aquino administration were a surface level veneer thinly used to mask an underlying system of money and corruption which superseded even national authority, much like the political systems which comprise
Following the protests and complaints “NAMFREL (National Citizens Movement for Free Elections) whose denunciations of the outcome of the presidential ‘snap’ elections of February 7, 1986 had been a major factor in the downfall of Marcos and the subsequent legitimization of Aquino, declared within days of the May 11 poll that Aquino’s party “may have cheated in the elections” (Kreof 637). In the end, after galvanizing a revolution, the figures of power within that revolution adopted the same characteristics which those supporting the revolution had given them power to resist. The administration was only better than Marcos in the sense that it, for a time, maintained a better façade of honesty and sincerity. The Aquino administration enacted certain laws and policies, not out of a genuine cosmopolitan desire to learn from cultural differences and enhance political processes through global influence, but rather because it was necessary to maintain power. They were better than the Marcos regime because they had to be, because they were a product of a revolution fed up with the same fraud and dishonesty which they themselves now practiced. The positive practices of the Aquino administration were a surface level veneer thinly used to mask an underlying system of money and corruption which superseded even national authority, much like the political systems which comprise