Excursion in Contemporary Philippine History Revisiting the Narratives of Marcos to Duterte Presidency — A Preliminary Essay

Is there such a thing as “Contemporary History”, isn’t it a misnomer considering that History should involve “past” events, while Contemporary talks about existing and occurring in the “present”. But in a time of “Social Amnesia” of collective forgetting, of “forcible repression” of memories and histories, when even the distant “past” has been a subject of Historical Negationism and Historical Denialism, its incumbent upon Social Scientist (not just Historian) to write “Contemporary History” with a keen critical appreciation. As explained by Michael Kandiah in his article, Contemporary History, The aim of contemporary history is to conceptualise, contextualise and historicise — to explain — some aspect of the recent past or to provide a historical understanding of current trends or developments[1].

As a Legal Sociologist, it’s been my training to look at the current phenomenon and connect it to the larger social structures (be it from a jurisprudential and legal precedent point of view, or from a sociological point of view). As exemplified by Charles Wright Mills in his book “Sociological Imagination” — Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both.” And that “The facts of contemporary history are also facts about the success and the failure of individual men and women” (Mills, 1959). Both lines from the seminal book The Sociological Imagination provides a starting point in studying “Contemporary History”.

But where do we start what’s the demarcation of this so-called “Contemporary History”? In the United Kingdom where the concept of “Contemporary History” is popular and is well supported by a scholarly organization such as the Institute of Contemporary History which demarcated the start of Contemporary History from the year 1945 (still a contentious date even among their own historical circle) attributing that period as the end of post-war Britain. The Institute was established in the early 1930s in the Netherlands and then brought to London in 1939: the founders wanted the world to know what was happening in Nazi Germany. Since then, it has transformed itself, with the Weiner Library, into a leading center for the study of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism[2].

But some scholars consider Contemporary History’s ambit covers that within “living memory” (Catterall, 1997) or those events usually within the lifetime of the historian (Maier, 2001).

In the Philippines, the only paper I have seen with explicit discussion of contemporary history is that of Lisandro Claudio’s The Contemporary History of Duterte’s Mass Murder. In this paper, he wrote about The images of dead bodies on the street, with cardboard signs declaring “I’m a pusher; don’t imitate me”; morgues with bodies stacked like firewood; families who wail outside police cordons, as onlookers take selfies with the lifeless fathers, husbands, or brothers of the bereaved[3]. It is by far an analysis of the deadly war on Drugs the primary campaign of the Duterte Administration of “ridding” the Philippines of the menace of illegal drugs, by sacrificing his own citizens.

So, when should a Contemporary History of the Philippine start? When should a scholar or a researcher of Contemporary Philippine History, say that he is indeed doing a Contemporary History?

It is my argument that Contemporary Philippine History should start with the Period of Marcos Presidency until the current Duterte Administration. Contemporary History is a unique field of intellectual endeavor because its aim is the rectification of past misdeeds, corruption, and human rights violation. Contemporary Philippine History like its forefathers in the European jurisdiction aims to discover and write the correct history of the recent past without fear or favor, against reprisal from the leaders who have abused their mandates of serving the people, who became despots and dictators championing an era of uncertainty and impunity.

Contemporary Philippine History should answer the problem of false narratives, Historical Denialism, Historical Negationism, and the rise of “fake news” or the disinformation peddlers. It is high time that the Philippines, its “public intellectuals” and its enlightened populace salvage the power of narratives not to serve the tenant in Malacañang but the people at large. They whose stories and lives matter, they who are only remembered when it’s time for the casting of the ballot.

It is high time that we provide them with a Historical Justice that they greatly deserved. Historical Justice, which refers to a perception on the part of victims and society that the worst crimes of the past have been adequately identified and acknowledged (Teitel, 2000). Especially when “Criminal Justice” is not anymore, a viable option.

[1] Kandiah, M., n.d. Contemporary History — Articles — Making History. [online] Archives.history.ac.uk. Available at: <https://archives.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/contemporary_history.html> [Accessed 5 December 2020].

[2] Ibid.

[3] Claudio, L.E. (2019) ‘The Contemporary History of Duterte’s Mass Murder’, Verge: Studies in Global Asias, 5(1), 118+, available: [accessed 04 Dec 2020].

(unfinished essay)