“Whatever he says we must obey and do” - is it so?
Or “The ‘Two Whatevers’ of Duterte-Marcos duo”
and how people dare to criticise it
Some days ago, this writer was reading a post about the “Two Whatevers” of former Chinese leader Hua Guofeng.
This statement, which said "We will resolutely uphold whatever policy decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly follow whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave" became a policy after Mao Zedong’s death and before the rise of Deng Xiaoping as paramount ruler of China.
However, this author applied the adage in a another context, focusing on Filipinos who backed Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte months after they were elected president and vice president, respectively.
That by employing the "Two Whatevers" in a local context, supporters of the so-called "Uniteam" believe that under the current Marcos regime, this means a chance to restore order, that of strongman rule, and by employing his predecessor's policies and instructions, albeit modified to suit his cause. However, seeing policies and instructions being modified (or mellowed down, distorted, or whatever according to some observers) proved to be different from what they had expected, especially when supporters from both the Marcos and Duterte factions began to emerge their differences, resulting in arguments despite claiming to be "united" in their goal of order and stability.
Sorry to use the late Chinese leader’s words technically for knowing in the local context, people at first think that the current Marcos regime would also share some aspects of a Dutertist, especially when supporters wanted a strongman to remain “strong” in the eyes of many, driven by the need to restore order after decades of “yellow misrule” and therefore “uphold whatever policy decisions Duterte made, and follow whatever instructions Duterte also gave” even it end riddled by intrigue and scandal amongst allies.
Quite ridiculous isn’t it? Especially when supporters would think the regime would just retain decisions and instructions brought by its predecessor, if so, then how come Duterte’s supporters end sidelined by that from the Marcoses? How come their favorite agendas end rephrased as those from the past administrations if not discontinued? And now as the International Criminal Court moves ahead with the investigation related to Duterte’s extrajudicial killings, will the current administration defend his predecessor the way Duterte defend Marcos’s tarnished legacy in face of widespread criticism? These and others may also show the limits of these “whatevers” being observed by the current administration. Also wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t accept Duterte’s agendas as that of rephrased Aquino’s and Aquino’s from Arroyo’s, these include most decisions and instructions that end having its content rephrased yet the essence remains same. Of course supporters would beg to differ on this but reality bites- for these still benefit the same interest seekers while claiming to be that of “benefiting the people”. And therefore means ridiculous.
For sure supporters would try to downplay this criticism as they cling to their perception that Marcos will “uphold whatever policy decisions Duterte made, and follow whatever instructions Duterte also gave”- even it is tarnished due to scandal, intrigue, and its notoriety. But for the concerned who sought truth from facts, will this charade ever continue? As such, those who want the uniteam coalition to be the one to pierce the veil either have two choices; to double down or to drop out of this spectacle completely in the face of growing criticism. They’ve wished for a thermidor after the “yellow misrule”, what more of a restoration under the “new society”, the question is: which is which? Or will it be “as it is” in accordance with their own “two whatevers”?