"Still, a Cacique meant to taketh down"
(or "Notes on Duterte's despotism hidden in a veneer of 'change')
(or "Notes on Duterte's despotism hidden in a veneer of 'change')
At first, this writeup argues that the Philippines under the present Duterte administration seems to be revisiting its own authoritative past even within the pretext of defending democracy and freedom.
For ever since 1972, or even earlier, leaders tend to use order as necessary to create numerous changes. Often borrowing the views from left-and-right wing authoritarians, as well as basing on conservative Filipino sensibilities, Filipino-style authoritarianism describes a particular Filipino version of one-man rule, although trying to appear "democratic" if not "populist" with the use of reforms to those of building infrastructures enough to mitigate problems especially those in the countryside.
However, this authoritarianism, despite its appeal for many, is increasingly autocratic. Like the the Datus, Sultans, and Caciques of old, President Rodrigo Duterte seems to act more than just his official title. He may tried to "imitate" the late Ferdinand Marcos, but the latter tend to be formal in his statements if not stately in his gestures as head of state and government. While Duterte himself, literally true to its title as "pangulo", his actions hath becoming despotic, and like the quote "ang utos ng hari ay di nababali"- at times his word may end official in front of the camera, if not trying to be mellowed down or justified by his court jesters while his supporters did appreciate him still no matter how his statements and movements deemed triggeredable in one's eyes and ears.
Otherwise, be diverted to matters in which the system be appear protagonist-like as his court jesters and supporters alike peddled fabricated stories enough to malign an individual or a movement. Because of this it aims to strike fear against the growing anti-fascist movement and stifle the burgeoning workers’ strikes and protests.
And by tagging critics as "terrorists" means a desperate attempt to quell the people's growing dissent and discontent the way they claim that living conditions in the Philippines have improved and that many Filipino families have already escaped poverty "thanks to Duterte's programs".
Ever since Duterte promised change in the Philippines everyone voted for him, even the left whom Duterte initially befriended did supported some of his stances, and even appointed some radicals in the cabinet.
But his statement turns out to be consolidating the status quo: his land reform turns out to be meant to lessen tension if not to silence the peasants if not bluntly to transform wide swathes of agricultural and ancestral land to commercial plantations and mining sites; that his TRAIN law turns out to be benefiting the elites for the latter pass the obligations to the workers if not its proceeds meant to pay debts from multinational moneylenders. He preserved all the policies brought about by his predecessors which prevent national economic development and aggravate the oppression and exploitation of the broad toiling masses of workers and peasants, as well as middle-income earners. His eight-point economic program is in line with the neoliberal policy proposals long-pushed for by the IMF-WB. He continued the policy of cheap labor as key incentive to attracting foreign investments. Labor rights are wantonly violated especially in so-called “economic zones”, and contractualization and various flexible employment schemes rather subject workers to ever worse conditions of oppression and exploitation.
But what Duterte did what made he known for, and perhaps be unforgettable by many, is how he is using campaigns of subterfuge to the hilt such as the “war against drugs,” “war against crime,” “anti-vagrancy,” “anti-corruption,” “anti-oligarchy,” “anti-terrorism,” and “peace” to justify his heinous employment of the military and the police, including mercenary death squads, to spread fear and terror on the Filipino people.
From these, truly that made the concerned end fooled by his promises that turned out to be half-baked realisations if not entirely falsehoods. If he is truly antiimperialistic as he favours an "independent foreign policy", then how come he has refused to heed the Filipino people's demand to abrogate the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951, the Visiting Forces Agreement of 1998, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement of 2014 and other unequal military treaties with the US? How come he also exercise a policy of passivity in relation to US and China saber-rattling and militarization of the West Philippine Sea- especially those of the contested parts of the Philippine maritime territory? Perhaps Duterte was against the United States out of Obama, but he end kowtowed to Trump after the former urged him to sing. He may had overtures with Xi Jingping and Putin, but despite agreements and statements that points Duterte into the latter two, the agreements with the United States continues to be upheld since the time of the Parity Rights- and the so-called 'socialist president' didn't even afford to abrogate it, if not finding it irrelevant to talk about international relations as he favours his favorite agenda.
Because of that no wonder why in each and every scenario is like the early seventies to late eighties. At no time in a nation's history people from all walks of life is still having the crying need for a total, rapid, and radical renewal that hath been so deeply and so painfully felt by so many. It seems that despite the so-called progress and development, it didn't diminish the demand nothing short of a genuine social revolution that will resolve the ills and to bring about basic equality of opportunities in the social, political, and economic life of the Filipino people.
As in the old days, these age-old repressions continues to creep- enough to describe a country as in a state of continuing past rather than gaining a future: the imposition of the Spanish feudal system, "improved" further by American liberal capitalist creed, has made the nation still difficult to charter its own course on troubled waters towards a genuinely Filipino way of life that is radically expressed in social, political, and economic structures that truly serves the people. Actually, Duterte and his ilk may afforded to express that desire to charter its own course; expressing terms enough to appease people such as nationalism, revolution, independence, social concord, or anything enough to depict his regime as such; but reality shows the contrary such as those stated from above- enough to diminish an idea that the regime, like its own predecessors, afforded to express these optimistic impressions.
And regardless of its jesters babble about major changes, what the Philippines experiences today still bore the same old problem that made people dare to protest if not to take arms and struggle, offering a program that is radical enough as it expresses the will of the people, particularly those from the laborers instead of those from the system and its apologists; there are other groups whom while shunning Duterte for his actions, did applaud him for his measures- which according to theirs as necessary moves to improve especially those of the economy, while the so-called "reformists" did tried to make efforts in creating an "alternative" from both elitists and masses, trying to make "balance" between the two thinking that "there should be an idea that benefits all";
But in a time when neoliberalism, globalisation, and promises of hot money flow prevailing at the expense of national patrimony, is this the change that benefits all when in fact it burdens the masses with taxes enough to pay debts, reservations to be exploited by multinationals and the like, and be called "progress"? No wonder why there are "reformists" whom did support Duterte as the latter ditches the radicals whom offered a program that includes genuine agrarian reform, national industrialisation, and the like the way those from the past administration immediately jumped ship as trying to maintain their foothold in their fiefs.
Sorry for the term, but the regime, trying to appear itself countering the past, reactionary regimes with some reformist, if not radical messages when in fact its very essence and existence is nothing but a reaction as it swores to upheld the status quo. Duterte and his ilk may afford to create various programs only to be treated as "measures" to consolidate interests at the expense of the people- that like his predecessors, the idea of development deals with extensive foreign investments, the construction of infrastructure projects, and considerable investments such as tourism and in business process outsourcing; but these are made alongside low wages, unsustainable development, increased taxes on low and middle income earners, and agreements that in essence sacrifices national patrimony to the market.
Yet, no matter how the regime bragged it as such, these "achievements" are likely to be deemed temporary- especially when widespread corruption and financial scandals be left unaddressed, as well as those of political stagnation, making the rate of development falling. Hence, why should people chose to get contented in a time when the state itself created turmoil?
Because of that no wonder why in each and every scenario is like the early seventies to late eighties. At no time in a nation's history people from all walks of life is still having the crying need for a total, rapid, and radical renewal that hath been so deeply and so painfully felt by so many. It seems that despite the so-called progress and development, it didn't diminish the demand nothing short of a genuine social revolution that will resolve the ills and to bring about basic equality of opportunities in the social, political, and economic life of the Filipino people.
As in the old days, these age-old repressions continues to creep- enough to describe a country as in a state of continuing past rather than gaining a future: the imposition of the Spanish feudal system, "improved" further by American liberal capitalist creed, has made the nation still difficult to charter its own course on troubled waters towards a genuinely Filipino way of life that is radically expressed in social, political, and economic structures that truly serves the people. Actually, Duterte and his ilk may afforded to express that desire to charter its own course; expressing terms enough to appease people such as nationalism, revolution, independence, social concord, or anything enough to depict his regime as such; but reality shows the contrary such as those stated from above- enough to diminish an idea that the regime, like its own predecessors, afforded to express these optimistic impressions.
And regardless of its jesters babble about major changes, what the Philippines experiences today still bore the same old problem that made people dare to protest if not to take arms and struggle, offering a program that is radical enough as it expresses the will of the people, particularly those from the laborers instead of those from the system and its apologists; there are other groups whom while shunning Duterte for his actions, did applaud him for his measures- which according to theirs as necessary moves to improve especially those of the economy, while the so-called "reformists" did tried to make efforts in creating an "alternative" from both elitists and masses, trying to make "balance" between the two thinking that "there should be an idea that benefits all";
But in a time when neoliberalism, globalisation, and promises of hot money flow prevailing at the expense of national patrimony, is this the change that benefits all when in fact it burdens the masses with taxes enough to pay debts, reservations to be exploited by multinationals and the like, and be called "progress"? No wonder why there are "reformists" whom did support Duterte as the latter ditches the radicals whom offered a program that includes genuine agrarian reform, national industrialisation, and the like the way those from the past administration immediately jumped ship as trying to maintain their foothold in their fiefs.
With that, this so-called "constitutional authoritarianism", "Punocracy", "Panguloism", or any other Filipino-style benevolent despotism tries to establish a "disciplined" volksgemeinschaft focusing on order and stability even at the expense of the masses. Like Pinochet, it tries to create an order enough to ensure business alone goes smoothly, or more like Spain's Franco since he made some semblance of "social safety nets" enough to say that his regime at least "better than the reds" he detested. And no matter how bloodied it would become his regime, apologists sought it as a necessary catharsis if not equating that change to a painful surgery - similar to the Greek experience wherein the then-ruling Junta compared themselves to doctors who operated on the "patient" by putting the patient's "foot" in an orthopedic cast and applying restraints on the "patient", tying on a surgical bed and putting under anesthesia to perform the "operation" so that the life of the "patient" would not be "endangered".
But the Philippine experience goes more than just the usual dictatorships as stated- for as they applied both "left-and-right" wing ways of running state affairs, at some point they used the masses through propaganda and even "grassroots organising" alongside the use of force and some picemeal reforms; and by taking populist sentiments, it transforms into hysteria especially when it comes to directing towards incompetents, particularly those from the past regime as it "failed to address the root causes" if not "aggravating" it.
Yet that same kind of hysteria did failed to resolve long-term issues such as addressing poverty and the need for genuine development both in urban and rural areas. Worse, that development has increasingly becoming aggressive and unsustainable-due to the prodding of neoliberal-minded economists and oligarchs whom benefiting from such numerous "projects" and policies. The cabinet, which is actually appointees from past regimes and from the military, also showed that the regime, despite assuming to be for "change" if not trying to be "revolutionary", turns out to be "counterreactionary" as its predecessors.
Yet, no matter how the regime bragged it as such, these "achievements" are likely to be deemed temporary- especially when widespread corruption and financial scandals be left unaddressed, as well as those of political stagnation, making the rate of development falling. Hence, why should people chose to get contented in a time when the state itself created turmoil?
So far, Duterte, with the "support from his fanatics" and with the approval from the order itself, bluntly wanted to make use of "change" as means to create another full blown despotism. Will people just accept it? Some would say "yes" thinking that this leads to rule of law and order, but, if that rule and order means to aggravate injustice on behalf of vested interests, then no wonder why people chose to be skeptical in his statements or seriously take resistance.