Compare and Contrast Analysis of the Inaugural Addresses of Former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Ejercito Estrada
INTRODUCTION
This paper will make use of the second inaugural address of Former President Ferdinand Marcos which was delivered December 30, 1969 at Rizal Park., Manila. The second material is the inaugural speech of Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada delivered also at Rizal Park, Manila last June 30, 1998.
This paper is subdivided into three parts: the analysis of Marcos’ speech, Estrada’s speech, and the comparing and contrasting of the speech contents and rhetorical elements applied. Generating conclusions then follows.
Looking into the second inaugural address of Former President Ferdinand Marcos, he started with a brief backgrounder by looking to a significant event in history that is very much related to the context the speech was delivered. In his opening paragraph, he said:
…On that year and hour when I first assumed the presidency, we found a government at the brink of disaster and collapse, a government that prompted fear before it inspired hope; plagued by indecision, scorned by self-doubt, its economy despoiled, its treasury plundered…
Upon presenting the situationer, the speaker then presented a counter action to such statements, and that was done through presenting the other side of it. Though at first he was mentioning of a country with political and economic plights, he ended up illustrating how the nation “kept faith” which eventually led the country to “pass that terrible cloud”. Emphasizing the role of the countrymen, he further stated that the “task of nation building never ends”, thus compelling a continuing pursuit for national development.
One very striking concept embedded in Marcos’ speech is his emphasis on discipline. It is interesting to note that the speech was delivered in December 1969 and approximately 2 ½ years after that (September 1972), Marcos declared Martial Law. His emphasis on discipline was very much apparent as he was explaining what it takes for a country to progress:
For discipline is the other face of achievement.
…In government I pledge the severest leadership in integrity as well as discipline. Public officials shall set the vision for simplicity within the bounds of civility…[emphasis added]
…We must now pledge, my countrymen, that in homage to the vision of race…a people…practicing self-discipline and self reliance without ostentation…[emphasis added]
In relation to that, the speaker also showed his perception about protests and demonstrations. His point was that protesting and blaming the plights of this nation to other people can do us no good. For the speaker, these “whiners”, as what Marcos called them, are plainly complaining things, not changing them. This is reflected in the following passages:
…Too long have we blamed on one another the ills of this nation. Too long have we wasted our opportunities by finding fault with each other, as if this would cure our ills and rectify our errors. Let us now banish recrimination.
There are too many of us who see things as they are and complain. Let us rather see things as they should be and aspire…
…Let us not just mourn them. Let us change them. [emphasis added]
Martial Law was declared more than two years after this speech with Marcos reasoning out that it was intended “to save the Republic” and “reform society”. The growing violence in the nation had come to certain magnitude that needed martial law. It was believed that the true reason why Marcos declared martial law was to perpetuate his rule over the Philippines, and the 1935 Constitution limited the term of the President to no more than eight consecutive years in office. The Constitution, however did not say how long martial law should last, only that it is left to the President’s own judgment. The following citation from the speech further shows that even in a speech delivered more than two years before the declaration, it is already reflected that Marcos is in accord with the idea of altering constitutional policies:
The next few years will lay the basis for a reformation – a revolutionary reformation of our international and domestic policies – of our political, social, legal and economic systems.
At the latter part of the speech, Marcos made use of optimism as he was emphasizing the role of the countrymen in creating a significant change in the society. He further uses the third person approach (i.e. using we) therefore involving the listeners and acknowledging their function as catalysts of national development.
In the inaugural speech of Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, on the other hand, the speaker’s use of the emotional approach can already be observed in the first part of the speech, and is then maintained as the speech progresses. At the very start of the speech, the speaker also established his image as pro-masa. He said that explicitly in the speech, and is also reflected with his prominent use of the Filipino language – the language of the common people – over the English language:
Sa wakas, mamumuno na sa ating masa ang isang kagaya nila, isang kaibigan at kapatid, isang kapwa – na alam kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng maging maka-masa.
Moreover, the speaker also established that in his past political career, he has done something very significant, thus making him worthy of the trust delegated to a president by the people. Before being elected as President, Ejercito Estrada served in the Senate. And as reflected in the following citation, he talked of his important contribution in fighting for democracy:
Noong huling tumindig ako dito sa Quirino Grandstand, kasama ko sina Pangulong Cory Aquino at Cardinal Sin, at napakarami ng nanindigan para sa demokrasya. Nakapiling ko rin kayo, at tayong lahat ay napabilang sa mga tunay na kaibigan ng demokrasya. Kaya papaano masasabi na ako raw ay mala-diktador? Noong huli akong tumindig doon sa lumang gusali ng Senado, labindalawa lamang kami. Ngunit labindalawa –
Labindalawa na lumalaban sa mala-higante at makapangyarihang bansa; labindalawa na lumalaban sa pamahalaang patuloy na nagpapaalila sa banyagang kapangyarihan; labindalawa na lumalaban sa public opinion.
Digging deeper into the speaker’s use of emotional approach, one can take notice of his use of victimage In Burkean Dramatism, victimage is one of the ways of purging guilt, and it is said to be applied in a speech when the speaker shows that he/she is the victim, the injured party. The following shows of the speaker showing himself as a victim of public mockery and this is to generate sympathy from the audience:
Tanong ko ngayon: mayroon pa ba kayang sinaktan at nilait nang higit pa sa akin? Mayroon pa ba kayang binastos sa peryodiko o sa radyo o sa telebisyon ng higit? Huwag na lang ako: kahit ang aking ina ay lubhang nasaktan dahil sa mga insultong ipinukol sa kanyang anak.
Ako ay tao lamang, at hindi po madaling magsabi – forgive and forget, kalimutan na lang. Ngunit kailangan kong tapusin ang yugtong ito; at sa akin ay tapos na, nasa likod na natin, at hindi na dapat pag-usapan.
Optimism is also evident in the speech. Ejercito Estrada showed all throughout the speech that there is still hope amidst all the problems the country has been facing for years. He further put emphasis on the role of the people in nation building.
It is also noteworthy that the speaker greatly employed the use of the first person approach. He lengthily used “I”, and in the following passages, he portrays a certain kind of authority and power as the President:
There will be no excuses, and there will be no exceptions. I have sent friends to jail before, and I can send them again. [emphasis added]
…Ginawa ko ang magagawa ko noong ako ang tagapangulo ng PACC. Gagawin ko ngayon ang lahat, ngayong Pangulo na ako. At walang sinumang makapipigil sa akin. [emphasis added]
Nais kong isaayos ang gulo sa ating mga lansangan…
Nais kong bigyan ng bagong lakas an gating ekonomiya…
Nais kong isipin ng bawat Pilipino, mahirap man o mayaman, na ang pinakaligtas na lugar sa buong mundo, ay ang kanyang kupang tinubuan. [emphasis added]
Moreover, the speaker also repeated his name all throughout and it further accentuated his image being a pro-masa. He is thus creating a picture that he is everybody’s friend, and a person whom the citizenry can rely on:
Kaya sa ating mga maliliit at mahihirap, narito ang pangako ni Erap: kayo nag unang makikibahagi sa mga biyaya mula sa ekonomiya, at mula sa pamahalaan…[emphasis added]
Samahan ninyo si Erap, upang bigyan natin ng kakaibang ningning ang kalayaan sa buhay ng masang Pilipino. [emphasis added]
The speech ended with the speaker leaving the audience a challenge – the challenge of national development.
Basing on the above analyses of the two speeches, we can then conclude that optimism is very typical in inaugural addresses. Since the inauguration marks off the start of their office, of course the speakers need to show confidence that they can do their job, of course with the help of the people. This inter-involvement can also be seen a factor why the speakers would generally employ the audience/listeners as part of the change they have been wanting. This thus creates a very moving and optimistic attitude.
The speeches are all reflective of the ethos – the character of the speakers. The speech of Marcos tells of the speaker as a firm and authoritative public official. It also tells of the personality of Marcos. The same holds true in the case of Ejercito Estrada. His speech shows his character and disposition, and the pro-masa image that he wanted to portray.
Though the addresses all fall in the same type of speech, it does not necessarily follow that a certain kind of pattern and structuring should be strictly followed for inaugural speeches. As reflected in the speeches used as materials in this analysis, both speakers applied different approaches. Marcos was more direct, and was generally discussing what it takes to rebuild a nation. Ejercito Estrada, on the other hand, made use of the emotional approach, and was into details rather than being general. While Marcos was into the broad discussion of changing the mindset and frame of thinking of the Filipinos, Ejercito Estrada was into the presentation of issues (eg. corruption, crimes, etc). Ejercito Estrada also reiterated his programs/projects for his term, while Marcos had done away with that. Thus, different approaches could be applied as long as the general features of an inaugural address is still evident – its optimism and enthusiasm.