In the late 1900s, Philippines has been facing a crisis in their government when democracy is challenged by dictatorship under the rule of an intelligent man, Ferdinand Marcos. According to Britannica, Marcos was put on trial for the murder of his father’s political rival in 1933 and was jailed in 1939, but was able to get an acquittal a year later on his own accord. He later became a lawyer and in World War II was a Philippine officer in the armed forces; however, he had claimed to be the leader of a guerilla resistant force, which helped him gain favor during election, but this was later claimed to be false. In 1965, Marcos defeated the Liberal president Diosdado Macapagal in the elections as the Nationalist president. While his first term
…show more content…
While the country was suffering from debt and poverty in some areas, the Marcos family has been living a life of luxury. The prime example would be Imelda Marcos, the First Lady, and her collection of more than one-thousand pairs of shoes, many of which are unused. With this knowledge, many began to assume that the money spent on these shoes were from public funds; however, in one interview with Ted Koppel, Marcos claimed that there was no proof that the money was taken from public funds and not from private funds. Furthermore, “Marcos also allegedly funneled millions of the country’s money by placing some of his trusted supporters in strategic economic position to channel resources to him. Experts call this the ‘crony capitalism’,” (“The Philippines During Martial Law”). This act was what made many people believe that the downfall of the Philippines was his fault, that he is corrupt and made the country poor. However, it should be noted that during the earlier years of his regime, two-pesos equaled one US-dollar before it started to lessen until it was about six-pesos per US-dollar. Nowadays, one US-dollar equal forty-seven pesos--almost eight times more. Add this to the fact that there had been multiple cases of corruption in succeeding governments, all of which are actually proven with justified proof, the downfall of the Philippines does not seem to fall on Marcos’s
While the country was suffering from debt and poverty in some areas, the Marcos family has been living a life of luxury. The prime example would be Imelda Marcos, the First Lady, and her collection of more than one-thousand pairs of shoes, many of which are unused. With this knowledge, many began to assume that the money spent on these shoes were from public funds; however, in one interview with Ted Koppel, Marcos claimed that there was no proof that the money was taken from public funds and not from private funds. Furthermore, “Marcos also allegedly funneled millions of the country’s money by placing some of his trusted supporters in strategic economic position to channel resources to him. Experts call this the ‘crony capitalism’,” (“The Philippines During Martial Law”). This act was what made many people believe that the downfall of the Philippines was his fault, that he is corrupt and made the country poor. However, it should be noted that during the earlier years of his regime, two-pesos equaled one US-dollar before it started to lessen until it was about six-pesos per US-dollar. Nowadays, one US-dollar equal forty-seven pesos--almost eight times more. Add this to the fact that there had been multiple cases of corruption in succeeding governments, all of which are actually proven with justified proof, the downfall of the Philippines does not seem to fall on Marcos’s