COMMENTARY
Salonga’s Historical Responsibility
By Luis Sanvictores
June 19, 2001
If
Salonga’s investigation of the Plaza Miranda bombing—relying as it does on
renegades to the revolutionary movement and operatives of successive reactionary
regimes—is anything like his political analysis, then I’m afraid that it
might not be very reliable.
For
Salonga accuses Sison of advocating boycott of the 1986 snap elections (and of
the EDSA revolution as well). Fortunately, we have on the record, Sison’s
interview on Dec. 26, 1985, and Business Day’s article on it the following
day, which indeed advocates the diametrical opposite of what Salonga accuses him
of: Sison called for “indirect and direct support” for the anti-Marcos
ticket of Aquino-Laurel, for firmly uniting and “continuously develop(ing)
unity with” the anti-Marcos opposition, and found “the enthusiasm for the
opposition ticket...very encouraging.”
Sison
advocated unity with the Aquino-Laurel ticket on the basis and to the extent of
its opposition to Marcos fascism, while not excusing or being uncritical of its
“limitations,” i.e., its "pro-U.S. inclinations and big
comprador-landlord interests." As he said, “Any force that seeks to
topple tyranny possesses and gains positive worth.”
As
for Sison’s stance toward the EDSA revolution, in that very interview way
before EDSA, he already predicted: ”If the opposition wins the votes but loses
the count, the united antifascist forces can proceed to more effective forms of
struggle with the broadest popular base.”
Yes,
the leadership of the revolutionary movement at the time unfortunately adopted,
contrary to the imprisoned Sison’s advice, an erroneous boycott policy on the
snap elections, but the revolutionary movement nevertheless was at the forefront
of the protests against the election fraud, and indeed was a major force in EDSA
and the final assault on the Malacanang gates that hastened Marcos’ flight.
If
Salonga can so cavalierly seek to revise the historical record on a matter where
there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, one cannot but have even
less confidence in his investigatory prowess that on examination rests on the
sandy foundations of the testimonies of the rotten balimbings,
degenerates, hirelings, and mercenaries that he cites. #