Henson, Pamela Carla G.

History 166-D
Discretionary Work # 3
How Revolutionary was the Philippine Revolution?
By shifting from a nationalist perspective to a comparative perspective, Rafael states that
the Philippine Revolution was not very revolutionary. In his presentation, he cites Jim
Richardsons book Light of Liberty: Documents and Studies of the Katipunan, 1892-1897 and
Mila Guerreros dissertation Luzon at War: Contradictions in Philippine Society, 1898-1902.
He uses these works to examine a different view of the revolution and of the birth of
nationalism and the nation. Firstly, Rafael says that the leadership of the revolution, which
was primarily composed of educated middle class men, was not proletarian. Like the
ilustrados, the members of the Katipunan were guided by Spanish liberalism, and were not
linked to colorum sects in terms of organization or ideology. Katipunan liberalism was not
articulated in the language of folk Christianityas what Ileto claimsbut in the language of
Freemasonry and the French Enlightenment. Moreover, the primary goal of the Katipunan
was simply to unite the archipelago under its leadership in order to overthrow Spain. As its
members were largely liberal and middle class, the Katipunan struggled for a regime change
and not social change or social leveling. It merely wanted to transfer the leadership from the
Spaniards to Christianized Filipino males. Additionally, Rafael makes a distinction between
intra-class and inter-class conflicts. The former refers to the conflict among the middle class
over the control of the revolution. An example of intra-class conflict is the power struggle
between Aguinaldo and Bonifacio, wherein the practical needs of the Katipuneros, and not
ideological differences, determined their allegiances to the Magdalo or the Magdiwang.
Meanwhile, the inter-class conflicts refer to those between the Republic and the peasant
groups and urban workers who were insisting on their rights. Similar to the colonial rulers, the
Republic engaged in heavy taxation, forced labor, land-grabbing, and abusive behavior by
military forces. As the Republic was governed by wealthy ilustrados and the elite leaders of
the Katipunan, it suppressed the peasants and urban workers who threatened radical social
change.1
Furthermore, the revolutionary leaders united and ruled the country for their own benefit.
For them, what was good for the elites was good for the rest of the country regardless of
differences in class, gender, or ethnicity. They established the rule of private property and
formal legal and racial equality with the Spaniards, then later with the Americans. They did not
strive for socio-economic equality with those below them nor concern themselves with the
redistribution of wealth, progressive taxation, or democratization of social relations.
Essentially, the revolution was a continuation of colonialism, expanding the social privileges
and economic growth of the elite. According to Rafael, the nation was governed by an

1 Vicente L. Rafael, How Revolutionary was the Philippine Revolution? (presentation,

Kritika Kultura Lecture Series, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, September 9, 2015).

oligarchy of the mind of the wealthiest and most educated people. The position and power of
the elites, which resulted from the Spanish colonial order, were preserved and expanded. 2
Rafaels thesis, which argues that the Philippine revolution was not very revolutionary
because it sought for a regime change instead of social change, can be supported by our
class lectures. Through our analysis of the Katipunans foundational documents in
Richardsons work, we can confirm that the Katipunans main goal was merely to unite the
archipelago under its leadership in order to achieve independence from Spain. Also, through
our discussions about the events following the eruption of the revolution in 1896, we see that,
in March of 1897, the Tejeros Convention brought about drastic changes within the Katipunan,
which involved its modernization and the development of a nationwide bureaucratic structure.
The triangular recruitment tradition and other superstitious practices were abolished, and
there was a decline in the use of the word Katipunan after this. Essentially, the organization,
which was primarily composed of middle class to lower-middle class members, evolved into a
revolutionary government led by elites. According to Renato Constantino, the Tejeros
Convention marked the beginning of the rule of the elite, and the end of the revolution of the
Filipino people. In this new revolutionary government, non-elites were considered unworthy of
holding political positions, as evidenced by Daniel Tironas complaint that Bonifacio was not
qualified to be the Secretary of Interior. Moreover, the rule of the elite was perpetuated in
1898 by the establishment of the Malolos Congress, which was composed of elites who had
never even fought in the revolution. Through the Malolos Constitution, these members of
Congress used their positions to secure the wealth and power that they attained during the
Spanish colonial era. For instance, Article 17 of the Constitution protected their property
rights, and Article 58 safeguarded their power to choose the president of the Republic.
To conclude, I believe that Rafael was able to sufficiently defend his thesis. His
arguments and interpretations of the events under study are heavily supported by data from
more recent scholarship. Also, through a different reading of sources of historical data (i.e. a
comparative instead of a nationalist reading), he creates a new framework or narrative that
makes sense of the revolutionary events. Using the works of Richardson, Cullinane, Mojares,
Anderson, Joaquin, and Guerrero, he reconstructs our perceptions of the revolution and the
birth of the nation, which have been greatly influenced by nationalist historiography. As he
demonstrates the continuity in leadership and ideology from the revolution to the Republic, we
see that, from the very beginning, the revolutionary goal was to unite the archipelago in order
to transfer the leadership from the Spaniards to the Filipino elites. Social or systemic change,
which is what a revolution usually seeks to attain, was never in the mind of the revolutionists.
Rafael argues that the Philippine revolution was nothing like that of the French. Instead, it was
similar to the liberal elite-led revolutions of the Americas. With this, he says that nationalist
creole modernity reassembled rather than destroyed imperial structures on both sides of the
Pacific. Essentially, the revolutions of the Philippines and the Americas merely preserved

2 Vicente L. Rafael, How Revolutionary was the Philippine Revolution? (presentation,

Kritika Kultura Lecture Series, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, September 9, 2015).

colonial institutions, and thus neglected the masses and expanded the wealth and power of
the elites. They were not very revolutionary because they failed to bring about the radical
social transformation that the masses aspired for. According to Rafael, the peasant groups
and urban workers in the Philippines thought of the revolution as a swindle and the Republic
as worse than the Spanish colonial government. 3 In summary, apart from Rafaels citation of
more recent scholarship, his use of an interesting, coherent, and meaningful narrative, as
summarized above, easily persuades his audience, including myself, to accept his thesis as
true.

Bibliography

3 Vicente L. Rafael, How Revolutionary was the Philippine Revolution? (presentation,

Kritika Kultura Lecture Series, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, September 9, 2015).

Rafael, Vicente L. How Revolutionary was the Philippine Revolution? Presentation at the
Kritika Kultura Lecture Series, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, September 9,
2015.