The United States and the Philippines once shared July 4 as a date of supreme significance—a founding day from which…

The United States and the Philippines once shared July 4 as a date of supreme significance—a founding day from which sovereign nationhood was said to begin. Yet the day never meant the same thing to both.

Not simply because one people declared independence from another nation while the other was cast as beneficiary of a conqueror’s generosity—but because the Filipino Fourth of July was meant to signify the successful transplantation of American institutions onto Philippine soil, while the American Fourth of July marked the inauguration of a genuinely new experiment in nationhood, anchored in the principle of human equality.

The later shift to June 12 was meant to correct the error that Filipinos became free only in 1946. It corrected nothing. The 1898 date commemorated only a proclamation of grievance and severance—a people’s exhaustion with Spanish rule, asserted without any vision of how a free Filipinas would henceforth govern itself. That vision, when it was finally presented at Malolos, came dressed in Western garments, as if the founders still needed to persuade the world that Filipinos were indeed ready for independence.

Article continues after this advertisement

We have, ever since, mistaken the adoption of modern governmental forms for the substance of sovereign nationhood—rarely insisting that government answer to the public good, that a state serving the few while failing the many forfeits its claim to legitimacy.

FEATURED STORIES

OPINION

OPINION

OPINION

The American Declaration is unique for grounding national identity not in shared ethnicity or race or religion but in a moral commitment: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal … endowed … with certain unalienable rights.” Government exists to secure these rights, deriving its powers from the consent of the governed. Lincoln regarded the Declaration as the standard by which the US Constitution itself should be judged, meaning: to fall short of it is, in the fullest sense, to be un-American.

This is not to romanticize American history. The nation has repeatedly betrayed its own creed—slavery, Jim Crow, and today, a presidency that treats institutional restraint itself as an obstacle to overcome. But the creed’s very design makes betrayal costly: each failure is felt as a crisis of identity, not merely of policy, since there is no separate cultural refuge where Americans can claim to be proudly “American” while the state fails the principle. That tension, however imperfectly resolved, is what keeps the promise alive enough to be fought over and over.

Filipino nationhood was built differently. What the Americans purported to accomplish in this part of the world was a modern Asian nation created in America’s image. For a time, the Philippines, equipped with all the structures of American-style governance, was the envy of other nations just emerging from colonial subjugation. That head start in modernity, however, proved to be illusory

Article continues after this advertisement

Colonized without the legacy of an indigenous bureaucratic tradition, the Philippines had no meritocratic corps of civil servants insulated enough from politics to discipline power in the name of the state—a crucial absence, among several, behind what followed.

The American colonial government in the Philippines, in the name of tutelary democracy, chose the path of least resistance by governing through, rather than against, the landed principalía. That decision echoes still, in the persistence of political dynasties, in an agrarian reform perpetually deferred by the very class asked to relinquish its own land, and a patrimonial system that treats the state as patrimony rather than public trust.

To be sure, none of this fully explains eight decades of underdevelopment. Predatory colonial extraction, Cold War dependency and open interference in national politics, and plain misgovernance and corruption all share the blame. They deserve their own detailed reckoning elsewhere. But institutions transplanted onto ground that never grew the culture to sustain them were bound to yield forms without substance: elections without accountability, a bill of rights without enforcement, a bureaucracy without independence, a political party system that is shamelessly controlled by business conglomerates and political families, etc.

Article continues after this advertisement

Two declarations, two fates. One bound a people’s identity to a principle exacting enough to keep generating crises when betrayed. The other bound a people to the outward shape of nationhood, and mistook the shape for the thing itself. That July 4 now passes for us almost unmarked is not just forgetfulness. It is, rather, an honest reckoning with what was never quite achieved.

—————-

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

[email protected]