Chapter 24 -

Revolution and reform

Because Spanish friars and the Spanish colonial government had such control over the Philippines, Rizal
naturally focuses much of his attention on the possibility of political change. He outlines two schools of
thought for making political change: the moderate liberalism embodied by Ibarra, and the radical
revolutionary ideology espoused by Elías. The first approach advocates for reform that would take place
within the context of the oppressive religious and governmental forces that already exist in the
Philippines. According to this point of view, there is still something worth salvaging in the prevailing
system. The second approach—championed by Elías—argues for a complete overthrow of the existing
power structures, which are irrevocably flawed and incapable of organic change. These opposing
viewpoints run throughout the novel, posing an important question about political and cultural
transformation: is it better to change a corrupt system from within, or is it better to completely
overthrow it using whatever means necessary?

Throughout the novel, Ibarra and Elías debate the morality and logic of total revolution. Elías, for his
part, believes that the current government is simultaneously too removed from and too harsh on the
population. When Ibarra argues that the Civil Guard acts brutally toward its citizens in order to improve
their behavior, Elías points out that the government doesn’t give its citizens the necessary tools to live
the way it wants them to. In other words, the government—in conjunction with the church—has so
disempowered the native population that it can’t possibly expect them to rise to the high standards it
sets, and so punishing them is unjust. This is an important argument because it refutes Ibarra’s belief
that there is a morally justifiable reason for the government to treat its citizens badly, and it justifies
Elías’ commitment to overthrowing the system entirely.

Elías continues this argument by considering the notions of agency and empowerment. He believes that
the “individual, neglected and abandoned by the state” has less “responsibility” under oppressive
circumstances, since he will inevitably make bad decisions and live a less “enlighten[ed]” life. In other
words, disempowerment creates unmotivated citizens, and in an oppressive system, there is no incentive
to live a good and moral life. Because of this, the government must be more “lenient.” Unfortunately, the
Civil Guard eagerly labels anybody who strays from what they view as the path of “enlightenment” as
“subversive,” teaming up with the church to level claims of heresy against these individuals who have not
been given the necessary tools to succeed on the “enlightened” path in the first place.

At first, Ibarra rejects Elías’ logic, since he optimistically believes that one must retain a small amount of
faith in the systems that control the Philippines. He believes that the government recognizes the church’s
corruption and is “working to introduce reforms that will correct these things.” He has even told Elías
that he believes the church, for all its faults, is a positive presence: “This institution might be imperfect,
yet I believe that, but for the fear it inspires, the number of criminals would increase.” Simply put, Ibarra
believes that even the threats posed by such institutions are potentially valuable because they
discourage criminality. However, Ibarra finally changes his mind after Father Salví organizes a revolt
against the Civil Guard and frames Ibarra as their leader, leaving Ibarra at the mercy of the corrupt power
of the Civil Guard and the friars. Ironically, his reaction to being labeled a subversive is to actually
become a subversive: “They opened my eyes,” he tells Elías, “they made me see the sores and forced me
to become a criminal! And so, just what they wanted, I will be a subversive, but a true subversive.” This
reaction confirms Elías’s theory that the oppressive system ultimately drives good people into lives of
crime because they have been given no other prospects or choices. With Ibarra’s transformation into a
radical, Rizal champions retaliation and revolution, a risky political move for an author writing in a
colonial state that is incubating rebellion.

COLONIALISM, Religion and power

Through Ibarra, the book’s protagonist who returns to the Philippines after having spent seven years in
Europe, Rizal shows the shocking extent to which the Catholic friars have commandeered the country’s
politics and culture, manipulating the lives of Filipino citizens in an attempt to assert authority and
influence. Thus, Rizal illustrates the Catholic priests’ corruption and their unchecked power, which
doesn’t stem from actual religious zeal, but rather from a love of supremacy that colonization has
enabled and encouraged.

Education

Rizal holds up education as a way of overcoming oppression. Ibarra, who is a respected figure because of
the fact that he studied in Europe, fiercely advocates the importance of intellect and education by
building a school in San Diego. In doing so, he seeks to give the townspeople a means of empowerment
outside the context of the church. Unfortunately, though, the friars are suspicious of such endeavors, so
Ibarra must convince them that his educational ambitions are closely related to their own religious
values. When it becomes clear that his allegiances do not lie with the church, however, the friars do
everything in their power to covertly derail his effort to spread secular knowledge. As such, Rizal pits
religion and education against one another, portraying religion as an oppressive force and education as a
liberating force in the colonized Philippines.

San Diego’s friars are fearful of education’s power to liberate natives from the church’s control. Tasio, for
example, is an old man who disregards religion in favor of philosophy and reason, for which the church
labels him a madman. This is a defensive move that demonstrates to the other citizens that anybody
who doesn’t believe what the church says will be seen as crazy and untrustworthy. Knowing his own
reputation, Tasio advises Ibarra not to associate with him, since it will only discredit Ibarra’s project to
build a school. In saying this, Tsaio recognizes that there are certain repercussions that come along with
devoting oneself to unpopular modes of thought, but that building a school (and offering education) is
more important than his own dignity. Nonetheless, Ibarra bristles at Tsaio instructing him to appease
authority figures by asking permission at each step of building the school. “Can’t I carry my idea forward
without a shadow hanging over it?” he asks. “Can’t good triumph over everything, and truth not need to
dress in the borrowed clothes of error?” When he refers to the “borrowed clothes of error,” he means
that education is an intrinsically valuable pursuit, one that is so “good” that it shouldn’t need to disguise
itself as part of a flawed governmental and religious system.

Although it is unwise of Ibarra not to recognize the importance of working with the Spanish colonial
powers, he is right that the friars stifle education and stand in the way of allowing students to grow.

In this manner, Rizal shows that, though education could lead to positive change in the Philippines, the
church curtails its effectiveness. In keeping with his view that the best way forward is for the country to
reform the corrupt system rather than completely destroy it, Ibarra takes Tasio’s advice. He tells the
schoolmaster that he wants “the religion that brought education to this society to be respected.” As
such, he frames education as a pursuit that is naturally linked to the church itself. Unfortunately, Ibarra
undermines his own tactic with his eventual violent outburst at Father Dámaso, which reveals to the
friars that Ibarra does not actually believe education stands to benefit from the influence of religion. In
the end, Ibarra is unable to see his project through because he is deemed a subversive heretic before
completing the building of the school. This is yet another example of how the church disrupts positive
social change in Noli Me Tangere.