By Herman M. Lagon
What truly killed democracy in the Philippines? Was it Martial Law, or had the system been slowly dying long before the declaration of Proclamation 1081? In his social media post “Failed Institutions” last September, UPV Chancellor Clement Camposano points out that Philippine democracy was already weak before Martial Law. He stresses that patronage politics, corruption, unchecked elite power, social inequality, and personalism caused the democratic collapse. These forces had hollowed out the democratic institutions, making them ineffective long before Batas Militar was declared. The Martial Law era, then, did not kill democracy—it merely extinguished what little remained of a system that had already decayed.
This assessment challenges the common view that Martial Law was the singular event that destroyed Philippine democracy. Camposano instead asks us to examine the structural flaws that enabled authoritarianism. An elitist and self-serving political culture had fostered political decay for decades, he claims. From this perspective, 1972 killed an empty shell, not a strong democracy. This reframing forces us to reflect on how political systems can be undermined from within, without any immediate or dramatic interventions, such as Martial Law.
Democracy’s vulnerability to internal decay is relevant today. Camposano’s post reminds us that many of the same issues persist, even though the Marcos regime is often blamed for Philippine democracy’s collapse. Political dynasties and patronage systems rule, and government corruption persists. Even after Marcos, the same forces that hollowed out democracy before 1972 threaten democratic progress.
For democracy to thrive, it needs more than institutions. Civic communities sustain and energize democratic governance, according to Camposano. Even well-designed democratic systems can become weak, ineffective, and manipulable by elites without citizen participation. Lack of civic engagement before and after Martial Law has contributed to Philippine democracy’s failures.
Therefore, commemorating Martial Law should not only remember the excesses of a dictatorship but also examine the long-standing issues that weakened democracy. It shows how systemic issues can slowly erode trust and participation and backslide democracy. These issues continue to persist today, with little sign of substantial reform or improvement.
Camposano’s reflection also serves as a call to action. It is not enough to mourn democracy under Martial Law or chant “never again” without addressing systemic issues. Building an engaged and empowered civic community is difficult. He implies that real change will come from addressing the structures that created authoritarianism, not just resisting it.
A strong democracy needs active and committed citizens as well as strong institutions. Camposano stresses that Filipinos must take responsibility for their democracy, both past and present. This includes rejecting authoritarianism and patronage and corruption systems that undermine democracy. It encourages people to drive change and participate meaningfully in governance to ensure that the democracy they seek is a functioning system supported by civic engagement.
The future of Philippine democracy hinges on the active participation of its people. Political dynasties, corruption, and inequality, as Camposano rightly points out, are not merely remnants of the past—they remain pressing obstacles to genuine democratic reform. To move forward, it is essential to rebuild a strong civic community and tackle the deeply entrenched structural issues in the country’s political system. Only by addressing these persistent barriers can the country pave the way for true progress and lasting democratic renewal.
Finally, Camposano’s post shows that democracy is threatened by dictators’ overt actions and the long-term decline of civic participation and institutional integrity. Martial Law Day should be a time to reflect on past wrongs and commit to addressing systemic issues that threaten Philippine democracy today. Real change will only occur when people take responsibility for their future and actively build a transparent, accountable, and inclusive system.
***
Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.
