EDSA II

1. What methods did the group(s) use to express their frustrations and ultimately lead to a revolution? In the year 2001, the people of the Philippines were furious when they heard the news that President Joseph Estrada was criminally taking millions of pesos from playing juteng, an illegal game. He was also charged of having different bank accounts under different names containing millions of pesos. This caused the second EDSA Revolution. It followed the methods of EDSA I. People gathered in protest in front of the Virgin Mary shrine at EDSA. They demanded that Estrada step down from office. Some people went to the Malacañang Palace but Estrada escaped the presidential palace. People from Estrada’s cabinet and economic advisors resigned as well. There was an impeachment trial with 21 judges which was formally opened on November 20 but began on December 7. These were the methods used that ultimately led to the revolution. 2. How is your revolution similar and/or different to one of the revolutions previously studied? Our previously studied revolution, EDSA I, is similar to the EDSA II Revolution because it was a nonviolent. It was mostly done by protesting that was headed by a political leader. The reason for both of these revolutions was that the country was being led by a corrupt leader. The American Revolution was different because what caused it was “no taxation without representation” which is a very different reason from EDSA II. In the American Revolution it was a group of people rebelling against another group whereas in EDSA II it was mostly just against one person, Estrada. The American Revolution also involved violence unlike this EDSA revolution. The French Revolution was also different from this because it was caused by inequality amongst the social classes. Both the French and EDSA II revolutions are similar because both protested. Though, the French Revolution used violence. 3. What was the eventual outcome of the revolution, and did the nation/people become better due to the revolution? The eventual outcome of the EDSA II Revolution was that Estrada, the corrupt president at that time, stepped down from office. It took a few days for Estrada to finally admit defeat. He called for a quick presidential election on national television. He did not plan on participating in this election. This let the Filipinos have a choice of who their president would be and they picked the current vice-president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Estrada was put under house arrest in his country house at Tanay, Rizal. He was only released last year, 2007. The nation and people did not improve after this because Arroyo also became corrupt after a while. She is no longer liked by the people as she has been accused of doing illegal things such as bribery for her defeat at her second term of presidency. Now, they want her out of office and have tried to use the same methods as EDSA II in trying to achieve this. 4. Was the revolution justified? Would other methods have worked? The EDSA II revolution was justified because Joseph Estrada stepped down from office and the Philippines got the president they wanted, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The method used was good because it was nonviolent therefore less damage was caused. There were hardly any people who died or got injured in its duration. Other methods would not have worked as well as the method they used because they would have caused more harm. Some methods they could use would be violent protesting like riots or coups. The positive effects of having violent protests or violence in their methods is that it would increase the speed of the effects. If the people of the Philippines had been violent, then Estrada would have probably stepped down faster than he did in the revolution held. But would it really be worth it to harm or kill people just to get the job done faster? Probably not. 5. Briefly state whether or not your revolution follows Brinton Crane’s Stages of Revolution? The EDSA II revolution does not fully follow Brinton Crane’s stages. The first stage, Symptoms, fits in. The middle class, who in this case are the citizens, loudly express their anger through protesting. The government is ineffective and is not able to manage the country because of an inept leader. These leaders are eventually deserted by the people. The second stage, Rising Fever, does not match up so well with EDSA II because despite the fact that the people do rise up against the government and the government cannot control the rebellion, no real new government is formed. There is no new constitution to be made. EDSA II did not follow stage three, Crisis, at all. The moderates in this revolution were the people of the Philippines but they were never given the job of ruling the country and therefore could not be inept at it. There were no radicals. This was a people power revolution that did not involve any violence by the people. The revolution was quite strong rather than fragile because it had many supporters throughout the country. The revolution was not lacking anything. It had money and a lot of support. More and more people would join the rally everyday and they did not lose their will to win. The last stage, Convalescence, works well with EDSA II. When Joseph Estrada finally stepped down from office the revolution ended. However, the country did not require a period of recovery as Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo came to power by becoming president and making everything back to normal. Life in the country did begin to return to normal. Bibliography: None, None. "EDSA Revolution of 2001." EDSA Revolution of 2001 1.. January 29, 2008 . None, None. "The success of People Power II." People Power II/EDSA II 1.. January 15, 2008 . Torchia , Christopher. "Smoke-clogged EDSA has become an emblem of popular revolt ." EDSA 20 24 feb 2006 1. 29 jan 2008 .