Why Muammar Gaddafi Was Not As Bad As Portrayed

By Emeka Chiaghanam

 

"They went into my closets looking for skeletons, but thank God, all they found were shoes, beautiful shoes."
— Imelda Marcos, 1987

The first time I saw a photograph of Imelda Marcos’ shoe collection, I didn’t gasp at the glittering rows of heels or the dizzying spectrum of colours. No, what struck me was the emptiness. Row upon row of pristine footwear, unworn, untouched, like artefacts in a museum of excess. And then it hit me: each pair was a silent monument to hunger unmet, medicine un-bought, lives unlived.

In the story of nations and their leaders, outfits often betray truths words conceal. And so it was with Imelda Marcos, once the radiant First Lady of the Philippines, later a name forever entwined with opulence and excess. Her shoes became more than mere footwear; they became icons, relics, and cautionary tales. Yet just beneath the glamour lay a deeper contradiction: the bullet‑proof brassiere she wore, concealing both fragility and fear beneath the silk. Let us walk gently, but purposefully, into the realm of vanity, vaults, and vulnerability.

How much can a shoe hold? The weight of a body, yes. But what about the weight of a nation’s suffering?

Over 1,000 Pairs: The Shoe Legacy  

Imelda Marcos, the former First Lady of the Philippines, didn’t just own shoes, she amassed them like a dragon hoarding gold. Over 1,000 pairs, they said. Some reports claimed even more. Long before Louboutin were a thing, she had custom-made Italian leather, delicate heels that had never kissed pavement. And then there were the other treasures: a bulletproof brassiere (because even vanity must be armoured), gowns dripping with sequins, a gold-plated Steinway piano while her people queued for rice.

You might laugh. A bulletproof bra? It sounds like satire. But then you remember: this was a woman who lived in a world where threats were real, where the rage of the oppressed simmered beneath the surface of her glittering galas. The brassiere wasn’t just armour, it was a metaphor. Protect the body, but leave the soul exposed.

Born in 1929 in Manila’s modest quarters, Imelda Romualdez first dazzled a nation as Miss Manila in 1953. She married Ferdinand Marcos soon after, propelling herself into arenas far from pageantry, those of statecraft, architecture, and ostentation. By the time martial law tightened its grip in the late 1970s, Imelda had amassed influence equal to her husband’s. She became known for unmissable fashion, cultural grandeur, and an "edifice complex", grand buildings erected with public funds and aimed to impress.

But it wasn't just skyscrapers that bore her brand. It was also shoes.

The Scent of Leather and Decay

Close your eyes and imagine it: the inside of her closet. The smell, rich, suffocating leather, polish, the faintest hint of mothballs. The sound, the click of heels on marble, the rustle of silk as another dress was added to the pile. The touch, cool, smooth soles that had never known sweat, never been scuffed by the rough edges of reality.

And then, outside the palace walls: the sour tang of poverty. The sticky heat of Manila’s slums, the murmur of empty stomachs, the metallic scent of blood from political dissidents "disappeared" by her husband’s regime. Imelda’s shoes weren’t just footwear; they were a barricade, a way to step over the suffering rather than on it.

When the people rose and the palace doors were stormed in February 1986, they found not skeletons, but shoes. Thousands of them. The exact number remains contested: government records at the time mentioned around 1,060 pairs while other estimations reached up to 3,000 or even 7,500. Imelda herself insisted the number was 1,060.

What kind of shoes? Not humble leather sandals. These were designer Ferragamos, Guccis, Chanels, Dors, Jourdans, Prada, and countless custom-made pairs by Filipino shoemakers of Marikina. One pair even blinked when she danced—battery-operated heels, whimsical yet unsettling.

The world stood still and watched. In a nation where malnutrition and poverty were realities, a closet of designer shoes broadcast a powerful offbeat message: power without empathy.

What Does Excess Even Mean?

We throw that word around, excess. But what does it feel like? It’s not just having more than you need. It’s needing more because the emptiness inside is bottomless. Psychologists call it "compensatory consumption", filling a void with things because people, love, meaning, are harder to stockpile.

Imelda wasn’t born into royalty. She knew hunger as a child. And then, suddenly, she didn’t. Power didn’t satisfy her; it hungered her. The more she had, the more she needed. A thousand shoes, yet always searching for the perfect pair. A bulletproof bra, yet never feeling safe.

Left behind in Malacañang Palace, the shoes were displayed by the new president, Corazon Aquino, more as symbols of outrage than style. Later, many were moved into storage until 800 were donated to Marikina’s local "Shoe Museum" in 2001. Today, about 720–800 pairs remain, with roughly a third exhibited at any one time.

Visitors trek in daily, cameras raised and eyes wide with shock, or fascination. They marvel at elaborate rhinestones, gold trim, and knee-high boots. Some linger before her favorite Beltrami black pumps, embedded with stones and gold sparkles, so dear she ordered dozens of identical pairs.

The museum is both shrine and reproach, a spot of grace in a regime’s shadow. But it hasn’t been spared neglect. Floods in 2009 and storms earlier in 2012 coaxed mold and termites into the wooden vaults, hastening the decay of shoes and gowns.

Yet restoration efforts persist. Airtight, climate-controlled cases hold the remaining shoes, and each pair is scrubbed, propped, and stabilized with care. Rangers of history tend to them, scratching beneath the polish to find deeper truths.

The Human Cost of a Single Heel

Let’s do the maths, not that Imelda ever did. In the 1970s, as Filipinos starved, the Marcos regime siphoned billions from the national treasury. Experts estimate up to $10 billion was stolen. How many hospitals could that have built? How many schools?

But forget the billions. Think smaller. One pair of her shoes cost more than a year’s wages for a Manila labourer. One dinner at her favourite New York restaurant could have fed a family for months. Excess isn’t just about having too much, it’s about others having nothing.

Imelda once joked she received shoes as tokens from local shoe fairs, and that many were gifts of praise. She shrewdly promoted Marikina’s footwear industry each time she travelled abroad. Local makers delivered ten pairs weekly; if she liked a style, she asked for more, and for matched handbags. That part of her collection was Indonesian, yes, but the rest?

Economic patronage or grand self-aggrandizement? Perhaps both.

The Marikina Museum, said one long-time staffer with reverence and unease, "should not be called the Imelda Marcos Museum", yet all roads lead to Imelda. It’s an awkward reminder: even as a dictator fell, his wife’s glamour remains one of the most lasting relics, from her face in a portrait to a parade of heels.

Bulletproof Brassiere: Armor Amid Opulence

While the world fixated on her shoes, fewer knew that Imelda didn’t just wear fashion. She wore protection. According to aides and biographies, she commissioned bulletproof undergarments, most infamously, a bulletproof brassiere.

It sounds almost surreal: steel woven into silk. A garment of beauty and terror. And yet, in a politically charged era, where assassination plots were whispered, coups plotted, and martial law tightened, fear was as real as any runway.

"Where did you first develop this perverse shoe fetish?" a Vanity Fair writer once mock-curiously asked. When questioned about those bulletproof bras, Imelda offered no denial, only implication.

Imagine the mind behind such an outfit: one hand smoothing a satin heel, the other touching the bullets sewn deep. It’s a garment that speaks to vulnerability beneath spectacle, a bridging of empire and fragility, vanity and visceral fear.

The bulletproof bra remains largely unexhibited. It’s a metaphor hidden in her fashion. To wear armor on your chest is to admit: you live in fear, even as you prance in pearls.

The Aftertaste of Excess

History has a way of balancing the scales. The Marcos wealth was plundered, but not all returned. Imelda, ever the survivor, outlived her infamy, even saw her family return to power. The shoes became a punchline. The bulletproof bra, a bizarre footnote.

But the people who suffered under her reign? Their stories don’t fit neatly into museum exhibits.

Visiting the Marikina Shoe Museum is a ritual for some, a pilgrimage for others. For teenagers, it’s TikTok-worthy irony. For survivors, it’s reminder of stolen futures. Often, it is both.

"Can't help but have a sneaky feeling the museum is secretly funded by her. Captions were unduly sympathetic to her. No mention of the corruption and excess… Strangely, the museum has placed a portrait of her near her collection… an object of reverence seems bizarre."

Another recalled walking through in silence, awed by beauty, angry at its source. Beauty and grief in unspoken tension; pride mixed with resentment, the footnotes of national repair.

Final Steps in This Story

The tale of Imelda Marcos is stitched with contradictions:

• Shoes that sparkled despite starving souls.
• Brassieres that shielded despite bleeding hearts.
• Museums that celebrated despite silent suffering.

So here’s what lingers: the understanding that excess isn’t just about money. It’s about attention. What we choose to see, and what we ignore. Imelda’s shoes were always in focus. The faces of the hungry? Blurred in the background.

And that, perhaps, is the real tragedy. Not the shoes themselves, but all the things we didn’t notice because we were too busy staring at them.