Muslim World Report

Corazon Aquino's Controversial Legacy and Its Economic Impact

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 1, 2025 10:31 AM | 6 min read | 1175 words

TL;DR: Corazon Aquino’s presidency represents a complex legacy of democracy and neoliberalism in the Philippines. This post assesses her economic policies, their implications, and explores alternative scenarios that could have shaped her legacy differently.

Corazon Aquino’s Legacy: A Critical Reflection on Neo-Liberalism and Democracy

The Situation

Corazon Aquino, celebrated as the first female president of the Philippines, is often lauded for her pivotal role in restoring democracy after the oppressive dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. However, a deeper examination of her presidency reveals a legacy that is as contentious as it is complex, demanding a critical reassessment.

Aquino’s administration, which began in 1986 following the historic People Power Revolution, was marked by:

  • Political and economic reforms intended to stabilize a nation in turmoil.
  • Neoliberal principles that prioritized privatization and austerity, raising serious questions about long-term consequences for the Filipino populace.

Upon assuming office, Aquino inherited a nation burdened by staggering debt—a direct consequence of the extravagant spending and rampant corruption characteristic of the Marcos regime. In her attempt to navigate this fiscal crisis, her government adopted neoliberal strategies that favored the privatization of state-owned assets. While these decisions aimed to restore investor confidence and secure international loans, they frequently came at the expense of:

  • Critical public services
  • Agricultural reforms

By prioritizing debt repayment over social welfare, Aquino’s policies exacerbated poverty and inequality, setting in motion a cycle of economic disenfranchisement that continues to afflict the Philippines today (Jewellord Nem Singh & Alvin Camba, 2020).

The repercussions of Aquino’s presidency extend beyond domestic borders, reflecting broader trends in global governance that favor market-driven solutions over social equity. In an increasingly interconnected world, Aquino’s decisions signify a departure from state-centric models of development, raising urgent questions about the future of democracy in nations grappling with similar legacies. The consequences of her fiscal strategies have become a point of contention among scholars and policymakers, particularly in light of contemporary challenges such as the rise of populism and the struggle for equitable economic reform.

As we reflect on her legacy, it is imperative to critically assess the implications of her leadership and the narratives that either vilify or sanctify her impact.

What if Aquino Had Prioritized Economic Equity Over Neoliberal Policies?

Had Corazon Aquino embraced a more egalitarian economic strategy, the Philippines might have charted a different course. Possible actions include:

  • Prioritizing social equity and the needs of marginalized communities over privatization.
  • Investing in agrarian reform, education, and healthcare.

Such policies could have fostered a more inclusive economy and mitigated widespread discontent and social unrest that characterized her later years.

Furthermore, a commitment to equitable economic policies could have fortified democratic institutions by empowering impoverished and rural communities. This could have led to:

  • A more vibrant civil society.
  • Enhanced political participation and accountability.

Such stability might have curbed the rise of populist movements that exploit economic grievances, presenting a viable alternative to disillusioned voters.

What if Aquino’s Government Had Been More Transparent About Its Policies?

Greater transparency regarding her administration’s policies could have significantly altered public perception. By candidly addressing the complexities of the debt crisis and the rationale behind privatization, she could have:

  • Fostered a more informed citizenry.
  • Empowered meaningful dialogue about the nation’s future.

Transparency would have necessitated clear communication strategies to demystify economic reforms and their implications. Open forums and inclusive decision-making processes could have facilitated a more democratic approach to governance, fostering a healthier political environment where accountability and participation were prioritized (Laurence L. Delina, 2021; Gerard Clarke, 2020).

What if Aquino Had Collaborated More with Grassroots Movements?

A critical scenario revolves around Aquino’s relationship with grassroots movements. Had her administration actively collaborated with these groups, particularly during the early years, potential outcomes could include:

  • Providing her government with valuable insights into the pressing needs of the population.
  • Informing more equitable policies through engagement with labor unions, peasant organizations, and civil society actors (Faranak Miraftab, 2006).

This partnership could have amplified the voices often marginalized in political discourse, allowing for broader perspectives in policy development. Such collaboration might have:

  • Bolstered her legitimacy as a leader committed to democracy and social justice.
  • Catalyzed significant reforms in agrarian policies, labor rights, and social welfare.

The resulting political solidarity could have served as a bulwark against elite interests, fostering a just and democratic society (Ian Raymond Pacquing, 2017; Katherine Gibson, 2014).

Strategic Maneuvers

Given the contentious legacy of Corazon Aquino’s presidency, various stakeholders must evaluate their positions and potential actions moving forward. For the Philippine government, crucial steps include:

  • Re-examining neoliberal policies that have defined the post-Aquino political landscape.
  • Reinvigorating public discourse around economic inequality and social justice to reclaim economic development narratives.

Civil society organizations and grassroots movements play a significant role in shaping the future narrative of Aquino’s legacy. By mobilizing and advocating for more equitable policies, these groups can:

  • Challenge the neoliberal framework perpetuating social stratification.
  • Build coalitions across diverse sectors to amplify their voice and impact.

Finally, scholars and policymakers must engage in a comprehensive re-evaluation of Aquino’s policies within the global context of neoliberalism and imperialism. Challenging existing narratives around her legacy is crucial for developing a nuanced understanding of the political economy in the Philippines.

By fostering an academic environment where critical analysis thrives, we can better appreciate the complexities inherent in Aquino’s presidency, ensuring that future leaders learn from both the successes and failures of this pivotal period in Philippine history (Alana M. W. LeBrón et al., 2019; Steven Robins, Andréa Cornwall, & Bettina von Lieres, 2008).

References

  • Aries A. Arugay & Justin Keith A. Baquisal. (2023). Political Accountability and Populism in the Philippines: Lessons from the Recent Past. Philippine Political Science Journal.

  • Eda Beyazıt. (2010). Economic Inequality in Neoliberal Reforms in the Philippines: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies.

  • Faranak Miraftab. (2006). Public-Private Partnerships: A Path to Greater Accountability? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.

  • Gerard Clarke. (2020). Democracy in Action: The Role of Civic Engagement in Philippine Governance. Philippine Journal of Public Administration.

  • Ian Raymond Pacquing. (2017). Grassroots Politics and Social Movements in the Philippines: A Study of Political Engagement. Journal of Asian Studies.

  • Jewellord Nem Singh & Alvin Camba. (2020). Neoliberalism and Economic Disparity in the Philippines: A Critical Overview. Asian Journal of Political Science.

  • Katherine Gibson. (2014). Rethinking Social Justice in Development Policy Contexts. Journal of Development Studies.

  • Laurence L. Delina. (2021). Transparency and Trust: Implications for Governance in Transitional Democracies. Journal of Political Affairs.

  • Steven Robins, Andréa Cornwall, & Bettina von Lieres. (2008). Democracy, Accountability, and Social Justice in Global Contexts. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work.

  • Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem. (2019). Revisiting Philippine Democracy: Paths to Equitable Governance. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies.

  • Yusef Waghid. (2014). Higher Education and Democratic Citizenship: A Critical Study. South African Journal of Higher Education.

  • Alana M. W. LeBrón et al. (2019). Framing Aquino’s Presidency: A Critical Analysis of Historical Narratives. Philippine Historical Review.

  • David Ley. (1980). Neoliberalism and the City: Implications for Urban Governance. Urban Studies.

  • Rina Ghose & Margaret Pettygrove. (2014). Civil Society Advocacy and Social Change in Contemporary Philippines. Philippine Sociological Review.

← Prev Next →