Ralph Allen M.

Rayos
Philo 19 B

I. Can Violence be Justified?

In the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution, we mark the end of the Marcosian martial law,
a long drought of torture, injustices, prejudices, and dictatorship. Then we begin another era of
freedom and democracy. The revolt of the Filipino people is caused by their strong opposition to
the government policies that made them suffer in the grassroots level. Perhaps, martial law
happened because of the President’s worry for his lost of power since the opposition during the
time was stronger than ever. The revolution does not just entail the loss of his power, but it purely
showcased the anger, eagerness, and violent Filipino people. Can the revolt, which is done with
full exertion of violence, be justified?

According to Arendt, "the distinction between violent and non-violent action is that the latter
is principally concerned with the establishment of something new and the former is entirely intent
upon the destruction of the old." According to Arendt, violence is justified insofar as it is successful
in achieving its goal; this distinguishes it from power, which is justified regardless of its goals.
Then she makes the claim that violence can only be justified in the short run because it is only
useful for achieving short-term objectives. She argues that violence essentially makes long-term
goals impossible to achieve due to its unpredictable nature and propensity to result in unexpected
results.

Arendt has also spoken about the two perspectives on the justification of violence, namely
local and global. The latter views violence from an outside perspective, whereas the former is
agent-centric in that it assesses efficacy and effectiveness through the eyes of an informed but
epistemically restricted agent. Arendt's analysis of the potential justification of violence is most
effective when viewed from two perspectives: the agent level and a larger, consequentialist level.
Violence is justified locally, according to those who use it, including police and demonstrators, in
the context of EDSA 1. Protestors regard violence as a tool to help them achieve their aspirational
aims; police see violence as a justifiable response to attempts to undermine law and order; and
counter protesters look for violence as a way to repress and silence other protesters.
More so, the EDSA 1 of 1986, in the application of the Arendtian definition of violence, is
justified since the goal was meant to overthrow the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos SR due to
his ghastly abuse on human rights and dictatorship in general. Arendt was certainly right that
violence can be justified, especially in the context mentioned above for the sole reason that the
short-term objective was met successfully, and if we are to weigh the violence caused by the
Filipino people in the EDSA 1, with all its intent, it is justifiable. The people of the Philippines
deserves a better government and undoubtedly Marcos did not live up to that demand.