"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.
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.