However, it was the first point that caught my eye: the generational gap in leadership that occured during Marcos' extended rule from 1972 to 1984.
From his article:
1969 to 1973 were watershed years, when the generation that reached maturity under the Japanese occupation was due to bow out. There should have been further transitions in 1973 and in 1977...1981 and 1985.... But the transition was postponed from 1972 to 1986. Since then, we have been 20 years behind in terms of leadership.
MLQ3 provides strong examples for each of the cases above (ellipsis mine for brevity).
Where I have questions is in the comparative exercise when looking at our situation in relation to other neighboring countries. A twenty year vacuum of potential leadership material is a serious thing indeed. However, dictators and military rule seem to have been the norm more than the exception during those years.
A look at the recent history of many other Asian countries would probably show the same environment that might breed gaps in transitions of leadership within the same period.
Granted, Marcos did severe damage to the growth of potential leaders in the country; but I think his 20-year rule simply put us on par with our other neighbors. Therefore, we probably need to look at other contributing factors to this dearth of leaders than the dictatorship.
A frustrated generation went abroad, depriving the country of an entire generation of intellectuals; those who stayed retreated to academe and engaged in an embittered effort to discredit everything that came before them, the result being a complete breakdown in a sense of identity and idealism.
True enough, but why didn't the exodus happen in the same degree in Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia?
Tag: Philippine politics