In February 1986, people filled EDSA. Not soldiers. Regular citizens. They believed something was wrong. Under Ferdinand Marcos Sr., there were documented human rights violations, limits on press freedom, arrests of critics, and serious economic decline, especially in the early 1980s. The snap election that year was widely disputed. Many felt the system was no longer fair.
So they protested.
The EDSA People Power Revolution led to a change in leadership. More importantly, it restored democratic institutions and led to the 1987 Constitution. Elections mattered again. The idea was simple: leaders must answer to the people.
After 1986, a slogan echoed for years: “Never again.”
It was widely understood to mean never again to Martial Law, never again to authoritarian rule, never again to abuses of state power. It was about a form of governance.
But slogans are powerful because they are short. And what is short can also be interpreted in different ways. For many, especially those who lived through that period, “Never again” became closely tied to the Marcos name itself. Over time, the meaning blurred between rejecting a system and rejecting a surname.
More than three decades after EDSA, through the same democratic system it restored, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was elected.
That’s where the tension begins.
The situation in 1986 was different from the situation in 2022. In 1986, many believed power had been abused and the snap election was not credible. In 2022, people voted under the existing democratic system. One moment was about stopping what many saw as misuse of power. The other was about choosing a leader through the ballot.
The irony many feel does not come from the rules of democracy. It comes from memory. If “Never again” was understood as never again to dictatorship, then the election of a new president through constitutional means does not break that promise. But if “Never again” was understood as never again a Marcos in power, then the result feels like a reversal.
That difference in interpretation explains the confusion.
EDSA restored a system. It did not lock in permanent outcomes. Democracy allows voters to choose, and those choices can change from one generation to the next.
At 40, maybe the real question is not whether EDSA was undone. The better question is whether the institutions it restored remain strong.
Are elections credible?
Can citizens speak freely?
Do courts function independently?
Can leaders be questioned without fear?
If those pillars stand, then the system EDSA restored is still in place.
Democracy does not guarantee who wins. It guarantees that the people decide.
And that decision can change over time.
⌨ ᴛʸᵖⁱⁿᵍ ᴏᵘᵗ ᵒᶠ ᵗʰᵉ ʙˡᵘᵉ ᵈᵃʳᵉᵐ ᵐᵘˢⁱᶜ ᵇˡᵒᵍ
