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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.