Will there be a "Farewell" to Dutertism?

Will there be a 'Farewell' to Dutertism?

(Or "As the supporter suddenly questions their idol and his integrity")

Before going into the subject of this topic, this person should like first to refer to the notes he read prior to this post.

For both domestic and comparative studies, the Philippines is at first a compelling study in regards to political change. Ever since its struggle for independence from 1896 to its recognition of self-rule in 1946, the Philippines has experienced revolutionary actions, home-rule under foreign tutelage, and sweeping transformations initiated from above. It also experienced martial law and its atrocities, of debt-driven development, and others that instead of bringing forth changes more of retention for the old order of landlords, compradores, and bureaucrats.

And this time, people looked at a leader such as Rodrigo Duterte to guide them out from their continuing pasts. Given his streetwise attitude and an image 'improved' by once activist-turned-bureaucrats, Duterte showed a ray of hope regardless of his controversial actions such as drug related killings to those of his political incorrectness; by sneering the people with the promise of change and development, one would say that he transformed his antics into a showcase of populist appeal- a machoman figure that people may look as a "man of action" willing to make serious moves regardless of its controversiality nor at the expense of people's trust.

(Again) Is it Change really meant to Consolidate?

In recent months, the Duterte administration has becoming less revolutionary and becoming orderist in its perspective.

For as any other politician caring for one's own interests, that same politician whom afforded to gain large number of voters has to rub elbows particularly those deemed as enemies of change and development by the same people voted for him-that from known landlords to well-known bureaucrats, of friendly "oligarchs" and mass ranks of past refuse, they all had to join the Duterte joyride as they all raised their fists in lieu of their known handsigns, of adjusting their agendas in favour of their newly-found patron, and even justifying their patron's acts as necessary move regardless of its controversial matter.

Given that situation, perhaps few but concerned supporters, driven by the realities surrounding would dare to speak critically in regards to the administration, particularly those of the president's confusing stances and programs that end cater to some interest-seeker. Especially when after they removed progressive-oriented secretaries for their stances proven to be radically different from the majority's compromise-filled agendas, if not blatantly because they are left-wing patriots surrounded by a camarilla of neoliberals and militarists. Duterte's increasingly orderist program desperately trying to be like Marcos with all the appeals to nostalgia, when in fact turns out to be a series of hollow phrases while obviously kowtowing to vested interests, swearing to uphold the order which the people still stuck to this day.

And for as everyone know ghat for despite promising to eradicate both corruption and the illegal drug trade, some if not all actions taken by the administration have been a failure if not riddled by controversy- one of which is how that regime uses public funds to consolidate, particularly through the pork barrel system which continues to operate through other subterfuges to its supporters- enough to retain its tyrannical rule and monopolize power.

Same interests,
same victims,
same struggle

Thinking that the present administration stubbornly insisting that their actions brought major changes, to most people, same old problems continue to prevail and even aggravating it.

For as ownership of big landled estates as in the past have still invariably caused discontent and unrest amongst tenants and occupants. The case of Hacienda Luisita, Lapanday, and other estates owned by known figures continue to be heard upon despite promises by the administration to dealt with upon.

As for administration, that issue rather treated as a showcase of "justice" if not bluntly trying to sneer away from the call of struggle- especially in those that are hotbeds of discontent and unrest. Some months ago, President Duterte used agrarian reform to entice members of the New Peoples Army to surrender since he himself recognise that agrarian issue as one reason to take arms and revolt against the state, but, thinking that his administration did afford to recognise, then how come they chose to tolerate the abuses of the landed gentries especially those having connections with the state? Lapanday for instance has connections with the administration, and those who demand land to the landless as tantamount to subversion, and its advocates be deemed culprits who've sowed disorder.

That unjustness is also same as in labour. With the passage of TRAIN law which became cause of increasing costs of commodities and services, the demand for just wages been the hot topic amongst laborers and management. Issues like Contractualisation and unjust working conditions also fuel discontent as strikes like those from NutriAsia, Alorica, San Miguel's Magnolia, even Jolibee exposed the company's stubbornness in keeping an unjust status quo, while the latter trying to deny but instead insisting that said discontent amongst workers as instigated by outside elements, mainly the concerned whom heard about their plight, and the owner's failure in addressing such grievance if not trying to evade what more in blaming those who ruin their reputation simply because those who express their grievance also seek truth from facts.

For Duterte, he and his economic managers would insist that reforms been taken seriously and meant to alleviate their plight so as to generate development as in the olden times, he would try to curry favor by promising the discontented what is badly needed all in exchange for "returning to the fold of law"- surrender to their interests.

From this, sorry to say, that why the concerned would insist that the country, regardless of the appearance of development if progress, still "semifeudal-semicolonial" if the administration, like those of its predecessors, boasting that there are numerous changes in the society? Is it because of the buildings? The number of infrastructures? Of welfare packages? Perhaps they forgot that one description of that semifeudal nature of the society is its culture of patronage, in which the order treats welfare as to appear themselves having a "noble duty" to its subjects.
From this kind of treatment on how welfare is by the government (or rather say the order), it diminishes the idea that the welfare of the people as its primary concern. For an interest-seeker, they see the helpless and the needy, the jobless and the underemployed, workers and farmers alike, as subservient subjects benefited from the "services" done by their patron but subjected to their patron's whims.
And to think that these subjects are ensuring their health and wellbeing by these patrons, not all benefited from that actually-existing "trickle down" kind of access to social services nor "reforms" brought about by these elected well-offs, if not seeing the latter failed to protect their subjects from abuses and exploitation, and to secure their needs as all these stems from the system itself, as mainly consists of entrenched entities benefiting from its exploitation.

From these situations, perhaps no wonder why the have-nots chose to vent their grievance and struggle. At first, is the grievance justified? For the affected then yes- for all after enduring such unjust conditions then without thinking, one, two, or more may dare to complain about rights denied or violated. To cite Crisol:

"A worker blows his top because his employer ignored his demands for an increase. An employer heatedly insists on his rights to pay as he pleases. Even the state demands that its rights are respdcted. The truth is that, whenever there is a right that has been violated, there has been a dury underperformed or shirked."

Pardon in citing a goddamn apologetic of the order for a reference, but reality showed that kind which the system failed to address but instead tolerating what employers apply such as harassing them. NutriAsia made it happen, even Jolibee, Magnolia, Alorica, or  also did happen that made workers either lie low or taking the struggle to further level as sympathizers willing to support as they recognise their plight contrary to their employer's defense statements.

A party gone confused?

Or willing to wither?

With all the issues surrounding the regime, a concerned would say that one of the errors of Duterte et al. includes a contradiction, one of which is that of a leader and camarilla whose principles divorced through an exclusively feudal view and temperament. For as people listen to the leader's statements and those of his ilk, and looking at its programs and its promises, the concept of change, being consolidatory in character, isn't transformative at all- let alone necessary improvements and change of wordings meant to appease people and to accommodate some in the agenda.

Quite triggeredable to apologists, especially that with their leader chose to be subservient to the diktat of multinational moneylenders and of various entities- if not seeing his party, PDP-LABAN rather end contrary to its supposed direction such as those of "Democratic Socialism".

And in speaking of that party's supposed political line, PDP-LABAN once adhere in defending national sovereignty and patrimony including those of favouring the creation of cooperatives to counter big businesses, agrarian reform for the landless, and a non-interventionist foreign policy as its objectives. However, as time goes by, and with politicians eagerly to join for survival, PDP-LABAN changed into a more and more bourgeois orderist party like its rivals.

Its supposed grassroots oriented inclination been eschewed as political turncoats replaced the committed in various levels, especially those trying to maintain their foothold in their fiefs. The supposed social democratic inclinations been diminished in favour of neoliberal perspectives particularly those of free market and its unhampered trade, that land reform has becoming favourable to multinationals diminishing its emancipative character as entrenched entities favor corporate farming instead of farmers whom favoring agrarian reform, that putting an end to contractualisation and other labour matters been babbled as any other promises than taken seriously as it addressed, and the failure to assert sovereignty in disputed isles Spratlys, Scarborough, and even Sabah- simply because of possible repercussions from its neighbors China and Malaysia, particularly in terms of economic matters.

But, since PDP LABAN also adheres to Federalism and its goal of empowering regions, Duterte rather turned the idea into something far from empowering- as he and his ilk railroad the change to a pseudo-federal system with Duterte himself as an all-powerful executive lording it over "autonomous regions" ruled as fiefdoms by favored warlords.

With all these and others which the administration and its political party is concerned, where is the empowerment on the first place when in fact same old entities continue to remain at large in their estates? What more that Duterte's cronies are salivating over the prospects of cornering the lucrative contracts, especially from the much-hyped "Build Build Build" plans and other related projects.

And with events like ouster of Pantaleon Alvarez as speaker of the house before Duterte's "State of the Nation Address" last July, the recent "party congress" which end assailed by Pimentel et al. for showing divisiveness, or worse, to see Duterte himself rubbing elbows with the Arroyos and the Marcoses, and even the recent formation of "Hugpong ng Pagbabago" (HnP) as a possible ruling party, all these and more has exposed fragments within PDP-LABAN's party structure and created intrigues amongst members, some of which old-timers that end resigned or booted out due to disfavour or disgust with the administration especially when it comes to questioning its actions.

Maybe the concerned partymates should spend some more words on the historical background of PDP-LABAN which was supposedly socio-revolutionary in outlook that involves popular participation in addressing socioeconomic problems, most of which had some correct and good leads at its disposal, especially on the subject of social, family, youth and cultural issues rather than depending on entrenched entities which diminishes its supposed ideological character. But when entrenched entities, like today's Dutertism has managed, thanks to the excellent skills of its leader, to "bring these good sides into practice" (when in fact dilutes its essence and becomes more of a means to consolidate the order); this is why the enthusiastic people did not resist the following running amok by Duterte and his clique.

And if they afforded to assail the Liberals, what more of the Left, is PDP-LABAN already forgotten its past? Actually it's past involved controversial personages like Ninoy Aquino, Trining Hererra, and even Alex Boncayao who end joined the underground and died fighting in the countryside with his name becoming known for an urban partisan unit. Some of its cofounders were even part of "April 6 Liberation Movement" and "Light a Fire" that spearheaded direct action against the Marcos regime through bombing sorties. And now to see Duterte et al. whilst carrying the name end rubbing elbows with the corrupt like those of the Marcoses and the Arroyos, then have they forgot their history? And if they assailed both the Liberals and the Left whilst supporting the former two, have they also forgot that they themselves as also once called "subversives" to the extent that Augusto Sanchez was killed for being pro-labour?

Anyway, How right was Ernst Niekisch when he in 1932 predicted that at the end; a coffin was placed in which the post-war youth, which Niekisch had put his hopes on, would be lost because of its urge for resistance would be broken by the demagogue- look at Cardena, he was used to be against Arroyo for being booted out at the Philippine Military Academy, and now seeing him dining with the former president whom he detested, what more of supporting Duterte? In horror people had to grow aware of the fact that the once-concerned citizen is more and more caught in a Duterte worship, that only distinguishes itself from other cults and religions because that it isn't surrounded with the slaughter of sacrificial animals and the smoke of incense- but rather of extrajudicial acts and of gunpowder.

Will there be a 'Farewell' to Dutertism?
(Or  looking back and fight again)

For a concerned patriot, voting for Duterte may've meant chances of bringing tremeandous changes in a country riddled by corruption, inefficiency, crime, and social negligence. Even this person admittingly speaking hath appreciated his promise to bring true reforms yet worried as he himself like his predecessors sworn first and foremost to upheld an unjust social order.

And by that uphelding that order meant criticism by many. Once, former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo stated the she  rather be 'right' than being 'popular' because of her actions that deemed controversial by nature. The Expanded Value Added Tax that hiked costs of goods and services, the military operations Bantay Laya I and II, the dealings with China's ZTE for the "National Broadband Network", even the cheating spree last 2004 elections meant a tremeandous ire amongst sectors, yet that lady president remained still with apologists trying to justify such moves as necessary such as EVAT for balancing the budget or for debt servicing.

From this, no wonder why Duterte also followed that direction. If not his idol Marcos, he followth Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as his camarilla worked on those regimes trying to continue past policies with new names and definitions and trying to recreate the "Pangulo" like what his idol did, trying to be benevolent and at the same time despotic in the eyes of his subjects; if not  trying to circumvent the law in pursuit of what he sees as just.

But, the actually-existing vulgarity made the regime what more of the president hi susceptible to criticism no matter how he or his apologists deny or justify an act. "Tokhang" made he criticisable especially after it targets the poor drug users and pushers than those of the rich smugglers; or TRAIN since despite promising to lessen taxes for the poor it created the contrary as most experienced through price hikes in oil and other commodities. So, where's the benevolence as been presented by the administration? Is it the porridge being given from "Duterte's Kitchen"? The "Biyaya ng Pagbabago"? The "Build Build Build" prorgam? Free tuition in State Colleges and Universities? Actually, supporters mistaken state responsibilities with "noblesse oblige"-style feudal patronage, if not insisting the project is actually planned by their idol rather than actually carrying those of their predecessors-especially those which fits one's legacy.

Perhaps as time goes by, and seeing how Duterte et al. rather trying to remove the vestiges of the past including those of its own political party, it shows that they are reversing what was actually a product of theirs- in pursuit of restoring an order that most people think as controversial, especially after Duterte's rubbing elbows with the Marcoses and Arroyos.

Worse, to see people increasingly becoming politically indifferent. As the nation is trapped between two crushing slabs: from above by historical pessimism and from below by social injustice, most chose to shrug it off that made the system exploit. 

Strange isn't it? But with all the events surrounding the present administration, ranging from making fuss with the opposition to those of having an alliance with the ones favoring a thermidor, that 'Change' Duterte and his ilk espoused is nonetheless nothing to do with Change at all- no matter how its apologists and supporters ought to insist.

And again, the people will never yield.

"When Rants affect Statecraft"

"When Rants affect Statecraft"

(Notes after Duterte's one-on-one interview with Salvador 'Sal' Panelo,

 and the rants that affected statecraft in general)

The recent face to face talk between President Rodrigo Duterte and the Presidential Legal Counsel Sal Panelo hath been an object of discussion for quite some time. Supposed to be a speech for the nation if not a typical meet the press type of discussion, the administration opted for a face to face talk in state-owned television, presenting it as an evaluation of affairs surrounding his rule and the need to address issues as such. 

However, that discussion turns out to be a rant session for Duterte himself as he tries to project power and control; other than falling short of expectations, his rants, despite mentioning  martial law in Mindanao, the Boracay re-opening, the entrance of a third telecommunications company, inflation and rice supply crisis, are rather full of vented angst towards the opposition, emphasising those of Senator Antonio Trillanes as former sees the justness of revoking his amnesty and subsequent rearrest. From there he even claiming of a conspiracy between the senator, the Liberal Party, the Communists and other forces one would which described "unbelievable" if not "figments of his imagination".
And in desperation, he has gone the extent of risking charges of treason by claiming a “foreign country” provided him recorded conversations proving such a conspiracy.

But for yours truly, that face to face discussion-cum-rant session created nothing but criticism fodder for the many despite supporters trying to insist their idol's point of view as well as his programs, no matter how controversial it appears to, as his style of governance, if not telling that his rural manners cannot be changed. True that he did tackle about other issues like Boracay re-opening to those of the Rice Supply Crisis, but his failure to address economic issues, relentless fascism and dictatorial ambitions as well as policies only fuel resistance and heighten their desire to kick him out of power. And to think that most if not all of his statements also reflect those of his country, it rather face a precarious future with numbers of highly favourable developments appears in large part offseted by the serious decline in public morale and a grave economic situation, especially when statecraft is marred by a myriad of scandal such as what Duterte and his camarilla encountered or even instigated.

With this, then it show how Duterte treats his country like a mere entity to be taken granted, that from his mood one would say that he was forced to take the presidency despite initial reluctance.  Think that Socio-economic matters rather taketh over by a camarilla of interest-seekers such as refuse from past regimes and favorites including those of Mocha Uson.

And in speaking of how that president treats statecraft, to paraphrase Muller's 'Die Elemente der Staatskunst', one is ought to say that the state and by extension the community, hath to be not treated as a mere factory, farm, insurance agency or a commercial company. It is not even like a device or a tool meant to out things in order as one would wish, but rather it is the inner union of all physical and moral needs, of all physical and spiritual wealth, of the inner and outer life of a folk community, all in a great, energetic, eternally active and living whole. 

It may sound illusory if not fictional that said phrase, but man's quest for an ideal community hath been since time immemorial, that in every interaction be it right or wrong lies the totality of human affairs if not a union of many successive generations. But reality failed to realise as such and turned the state into a tool of consolidation than a spearheader of change. And for sure everyone knows that Duterte did sneered people through the ears by telling his administration as socialistic, if not that his rule as just if not enlightened; but given the bloodshed and the interest prevailing, is his version of change be considered a vulgar form of Marcos's 'constitutional authoritarianism'? Vulgar in a sense that it is divorced from the law by making the law less lawful if not amoral? His statements if not his antics desired for that.

And in fairness for the late dictator that he himself recognise the state as consolidatory entity while trying to appear itself a spearheader of change in order to address issues like poverty. That despite his actually existing reactionary stance, he tries to appear himself 'benevolent', much his dictatorial regime as 'liberal' the way he presented it in his "Notes from the New Society" and "Today's Revolution: Democracy". Like Muller, he sees the state as a factor to unite physical, moral, and spiritual wealth to revive the lost consciousness and drivel to achieve progress and stability. From his book 'Notes in the New Society II', he, assuming to be 'progressive', speaks on why the rebellion of the poor may take various forms, if not a search for an ideology which makes that rebellion be the basis of the new society:

"Moral realism requires this ideological basis: the consciousness of the poor permates them with a profound sense of being oppressed, and not simply because the rich oppresses then brazenly but it is povert itself that oppresses them.

To be poor is to be without, and, therefore, to be an outsider in the vibrant and meaningful political, economic, and social life of modern human community. Above all, being poor is being invisible; violence makes them visible."

But despite the order's means to let's just say "achieve development", dissident agitation for social change has comparatively more success given the structure's half-hearted action for social amelioriation. After all, it was the same Marcos who opted to leave his predecessor's decontrol untouched thinking it is inseparable to free enterprise. So was the floating rate in Peso, the junking of the Magna Carta of Social Justice and Economic Freedom due to Martial Law with its suspension of the 1935 constitution, and the membership in the "General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade"'(GATT) that led to further subjugation of the country to multinational/transnational moneylenders. 

And so is Duterte whom opted to emulate his idol and pursuing a continuity of his predecessors: continuing VAT with additional enabling law like TRAIN, the policy of borrowing from neighbouring countries and multinational moneylending institutions, obeisance to existing economic agreements regardless of its unjustness, failure to end contractualisation and other labour issues meant to resolve as promised,  and others that made Duterte's change more like a continuity with new terms and paraphrased statements, if not a counterreaction trying to appear as revolution according to his apologists. If he truly adhere to his statement claiming himself as socialist then how come he acted not as his camarilla of neoliberals and militarists opted to continue the actions of their predecessors? For sure one would remember how Noynoy Aquino promised to stop the Conditional Cash Transfer program for it was riddled with corruption if not being synonymous with the past regime.

Anyway, the people's desire for genuine sociopolitical liberation and economic emancipation continues as the order fails to address if not distorts, dilutes the situation as mere politicking. Actually, given the recent scenarioes the administration actively taketh part, they're the ones whom actively politicking whilst leaving economic matters at the hands of entrenched interests; the way laws like the first and second part of TRAIN doesn't provide opportunity nor relief as inflation rate increases so's the cost of goods and services, what more of gimmicks from known government officials such as Agriculture's Piñol proving that the imported rice, no matter how infested it was, as well as the alleged embalmed fish can be eaten or those from the Presidential Communications Group whom trying hard to beautify a soiled image- and end deemed as satirical if not stupidity. 

Quite offensive but the reality has brought the concerned that offensive impression the way it tela that the political and economic development as uneven: of few modern industrial and commercial enclaves coexist with a vast stagnant countryside, of compradores and despotic landlords ruled over thousands of workers and peasants, again, when will there be a society which truly imbues the inner union of material and spiritual needs as Muller stated in his Staatskunst?

Duterte and his fanatics will still cling to their view that their brand of authoritarianism as democratic if not revolutionary. But the revolution can only be made with revolutionaries and not structuralists. Theirs, be cold and calculating, are rather like melancholic ghosts wandering around Malacañang trying to reclaim the past in a guise of creating a future. Someone by temperament and through experience mistrustful of others, whom they see only motivated in their turn when induced by base interests; skeptical about their views despite parroting it, then poor Duterte for as he becoming a negation of what people desired of- and so is his camarilla of past refuses.

"The 'Boy General' from an 'Infantile Republic'"

"The 'Boy General' from an 'Infantile Republic'"

Thoughts after watching "Goyo"

At first, this person is ought to say that the movie "Goyo: ang Batang Heneral" is worth watching.

For as yours truly waited and watched, seems that many people, driven by the "Heneral Luna" fever few years ago, chose to watch Tarog's work amidst the fact that there are other known movies being shown in that cinema, and from there again they sought the crisis of the first republic not just a country marred by invasion and its subsequent war.

And of course, of personages whose principles trying to remain intact like Mabini (as played by Epi Quizon), if not compromised out of practicality such as survival (like Paterno or even Aguinaldo himself). But also amongst the ranks are those fighting for an adventure despite trying to upheld if not feigning having principles, and this kind of view is what Gregorio del Pilar (played by Paolo Avelino) been showth of.

No offense but despite Del Pilar showed himself with his almost Byronic attitude that he wanted to defend his country's freedom and be a legend for others, his principles end compromised by his loyalty to his leader Aguinaldo- making himself a mercenary henchman against Filipinos opposing him such as in the case of the Bernal brothers whose patriotism brought by their late superior Luna stood than those of political loyalties as Aguinaldo's camarilla find convenient.

And from this, alongside controversies surrounding the young republic, then maybe quite true that the Americans have always regarded the Filipinos to be like children, perhaps because its leaders then and even now are like immature and selfish, prioritizing their Political or much better if Personal Agendas, as always wanted to ensure hold of power and convenience- and in it then no wonder why Otis and McArthur (played by thespians Rocha and Faustmann) find them amusing from personages wanting power and fame some would even willing go give up the fight like Paterno and Buencamino. 

Or how Del Pilar himself used his fame and even charm (if to include his exploits as a lady's man) to enjoy the privilege as part of Aguinaldo's camarilla than to devote more in the struggle as what Luna and those loyal to him did.

Still political isn't it? For those who want to move on in search for an uncertain future, that whatever they say, history, so much reality, will always be riddled with politics be it intriguing or not, and most of which affected its struggle against colonial rulers much more of its quest for freedom. Mabini fairly noticed that enough to state that Filipinos are like children, or is the word "children" be like "incapable" as what colonisers think of?

But Goyo he treated the entire struggle as an adventure that in the end he want to die like a legend- and his legend be borne out of various reasons: Was it really to ensure that Aguinaldo escape from the Americans? Or to prevent the Del Pilar brigade to meet with the Tinio Brigade of Ilocos as rumours surfaced? Sounds Joaquinesque with those rumors but why not? For sure people wanted to learn history that isn't textbookish!

All in all, that brave lad, if to look frankly, was nothing but got a perks of a position in exchange for loyalty. Probably he end got some conscience by self-realisation that made he gone 'patriotic' at Tirad Pass.

And because of this then perhaps right was the Esquire article published last August 30 as it saidth:

"It's an ironic message for a film that is, essentially, about someone whom many regard as a hero. But it's one that makes perfect sense in the context of our culture today. Here's to hoping that Goyo can impress this imporant message upon its audiences in a way that's as impactful as Luna was in 2015."

Anyway, despite all the challenges, this person, as others concerned who watched the movie would say that such as with scenes superfluously dramatic, shifting from the real to the surreal in an attempt to make a 'hero' much more human, then emarkably, the production has given the audience the experience of late 19th to early 20th century unlike those been romanticised such as those of Caparas's Tirad Pass if not trying to shatter the Zaidean textbook epic that made children think as gospel truth.