A reign of fear and anxiety”: Martial law’s roots in colonialism

Abstract

What is before and beyond our commonplace understanding of martial law as Marcos Martial Law? The Official Gazette traces its beginnings in 1969 when Marcos Sr. boasted that martial law was a matter of when and where. But in a 1973 address, he credited the Americans for having made clear in the fundamental law the power of the chief executive to declare martial law. Marcos Sr.’s claims were self-serving, but he was correct in emphasizing martial law’s roots in colonialism. Martial law is an English and American colonial tradition and legal conundrum. It is foremost an instrument for empire and the subjugation of peoples in colonized territories. But it also raises questions and provokes disputes on its ambiguous but important standing within Anglo-American law. This essay examines this lineage by first exploring immediate questions: Is martial law law? Was its proclamation in 1972 legal as Marcos Sr. claimed? How can we make sense of his assertion 
that martial law was democratic self-defense? However, these questions transition into more fundamental ones: What was martial law’s role in colonialism? What were its specific practices? Is there a logic that governs these practices? This essay undertakes three things: First, it demonstrates connections between the terms that define martial law: exception/emergency, doubled rule of law, arbitrary power, and violence/terror. Second, it illustrates the continuities in the logic and repertoire of martial law whether deployed within the colonial and post-colonial. Third, it shows that martial law is not just Marcos Sr.’s but also Arroyo’s and Duterte’s, also Anglo-American and European colonialisms’—stained with an inequitable history, a depraved logic, and a repertoire of brutality.