Still insisting "change" within continuity?

Still insisting "change" within continuity?

(Or how the direction under the Duterte administration appears for the future 

even in an actually continuing past)

Again, all these are 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. For despite the attempts to undermine if not lessen fervour, and amidst the so-called progress and development being shown throught, these 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.

For as in the old days, 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, being "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- in a way sakadas, haciendas, the peasant problem hath remained a major social issue amidst growing urbanisation and the likes.

And perhaps one would think and say that this matters can't get over from moving forward as a nation. Whereas its neighbours experienced development that benefited the many, the Philippines, given its centuries-old order, changes remained minimal if not bluntly aesthetic, especially when compradores and landlords alike did afford to dilute the essence of numerous reforms into cheap rhetorics primarily meant to appease the folk-while still enjoying their privileges as in the past.

From this, no wonder why people assert the need for genuine socioeconomic change and therefore find same old statements against imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat capitalism or various calls for agrarian reform and other forms of social justice deemed repetitive- that even politicians would dare to vent those messages enough to appear themselves as reformists if not radicals just to sneer people through the ears.  And actually, Duterte and his ilk did afforded to express those statements; with most of which be substituted with terms like oligarchs and the corrupt, given the fact the president himself, aside from being a member of a somewhat "social democratic" party*, also initially appeared to act "leftist" given his dealings with the Communist party and other related organisations, oftentimes seeing him raising fists alongside left's known personages; while at the same time rightist given his dealings with the military, big businesses, and traditional political families especially those from the Marcoses. Sounds inclusive isn't it? For one of the president's desire is "unity and stability" in order to facilitate growth and ensure welfare.

Otherwise, this would be an another attempt in formulating a national view using Duterte as a platform. Like Marcos's "Filipino Ideology" and its "Revolution from the Center", Duterte, via his apologists, tend to make him appear to be both revolutionary and consolidatory as it stresses the idea-view of Political Liberation, Economic Emancipation, and of Social Concord; and these views, like ideologies have been found to-be useful tools to legitimatize regimes, set and emotionalize national goals and even obtain or maintain political power. And all these has been exemplified by Erbakan's "Milli Gorus" (National View) in Turkey, Soekarno's "Guided Democracy" in Indonesia, "Personalism" in then-south Vietnam, and Burma's "Way to Socialism" under Ne Win.

The government, despite denying these,
somewhat 'supported' these "grassroots" groups such as those.

Quite past-like in one's impression, knowing that these views be brought about by leaders who wished to lessen if not break away western influence in governance. Its adherents like "Filipino Ideology's" Nilo Tayag sought Duterte as another Marcos-like figure to cherish upon; perhaps because he embodies the leader Filipinos desired as such that possibly includes circumventing the laws if it means to upheld 'order' and 'justice'. He and other personalities like Robin Padilla even expressed support for a "revolutionary government" that's been brewed many months ago, being featured at Duterte supporters' pages in social media to porridge-driven assemblies at Plaza Miranda and Mendiola in Manila. 

But despite the alleged "massive support", the president's supporters in the government, although at first supported if not toyed the idea, suddenly end backed down, citing possible negative effects from the business sector.

From these scenarios, groups, and appeals, one would say that Duterte's fanatics 'seriously' clamoured for a strong ruler alongside the desire for strong regions for economic development- and to some extent the desire to lessen if not eschew democratic principles thinking it hath created chaos using "freedom" if not creating hindrance to the government's agenda of restoring order and stability- in a way that the president intensified the existing drug war whilst his apologists churning propaganda against political rivals alongside its calls for education, an end to fraudulent politics, the prevention of corruption and a reform of the bureaucratic machinery, improving tax collection to improve welfare packages and for infrastructure building, modernization of agriculture, and even the formation of mass organizations.

However, despite its progressive if not "revolutionary" appearance as what apologists insisted, "Dutertism" cannot sustain its revolutionary appeal but rather cultivates its reactionary view. From the time Duterte sworn to upheld the order, and continuing its exploitative acts, people noticed that his views lessened if not changed so as to accommodate other sectors especially those stated earlier. From this, no wonder he failed to address issues of controversial matter such as contractualisation, the need for a just living wage, an end to militarisation of communities, and maximise agrarian reform to include contested land to be cultivated by the peasants; or using those same topics especially agrarian reform merely to pacify peasant dissent if not as a bait to surrender the revolutionary movement.

The "Pangulo" with his court jesters Mocha Uson and Harry Roque

But in fairness to him, his extensive use of propaganda, particularly the art of disinformation, created an appeal to the masses alongside grassroots organising from PDP LABAN members or former activists-turned-supporters trying to make Duterte a radical figure leading a different kind of revolution. The former would say that it did tried to return to its initial beginnings as a mass oriented party prior to its full, mainstream entity as a party of turncoats; while the latter appears to be doing their old acts but in a different view including those of sowing fear and discontent just to make the president like a "great helmsman" in everyone's eyes. In a time when workers, peasants, and other concerned sectors urged for wage increase, agrarian reform, an end to unjust taxes and other decrees, his apologists would either reinterpret as a show of support for the president for the latter promised them to end these unjust issues, if not redescribing them as rabblerousers, subversives, or even paid hacks simply because of opposing him and his agenda. 

From all these, one would think that the orderism Duterte tried to create is "revolutionary" in appearance, when in fact it is Counterreactionary or reactionary itself. Based from some earlier notes the word "Counterreactionary" tends to show how reactionaries are opposing fellow reactionaries, spewing messages of change and reform only to be lessened if not eschewed altogether after taking into power. And Duterte, whom bannering the idea of change against the past administration, turned out to be a consolidator of interests ranging from the military, the big businesses whom benefiting from his populist programs, and of course, from those whom opposing the Liberal Party. His election as president paved way to a revival of Marcos loyalism (especially after his promise to bury the late dictator) if not the release of Pamapanga representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from her detention- and these did cost support from those whom initially supported the president but opposed some if not most of his actions.

But despite such feats ranging from numerous infrastructures to promises of 'good life', same obstacles to their successes remain through both by the general apathy of the masses and the opposition of the Philippines's major political parties as well as the radicals whom exposed and opposed Duterte despite its initial support for him. But as time goes by, the ones apathetic hath becoming aware of the truth that can't be refuted by false reports. As masses, the people aware the fact that the president's action hath becoming despotic given his actions and statements. The extension of Martial law in Mindanao for another year, the right for the police to issue subpoenas instead of the courts, the rapid surge in the price of commodities and charges for public utilities brought about by a tax reform act, even the foul mouthed statements against God and the church, will people still cling to his vision of "change" that benefited the same ruling order of feudal lords, corrupt bureaucrats, and officials subservient to imperialists than those of their compatriots? 

So far, whatever apologists claimed, that the truth shows how Duterte and his clique has not been outstandingly successful in achieving any views its neighbors did be it past or present. But instead, it has discovered the dissension and obstacles normal to attempts to concretise and implement vague slogans.

*at some time they assumed themselves as "social democrats" or "democratic socialists" prior to become full blown apologists of the neoliberal order pretending as populists.