DISCOURSE ON the new administration under President Rodrigo Duterte was brought to light in Doing Digong: Politics in the Wake of EDSA held on August 2 at the Rizal Library 5th floor.
The series of talks was organized by Kritika Kultura, in cooperation with the Rizal Library, the English, Philosophy, History, and Political Science Departments, and the University of Washington Study Abroad Program.
The forum aimed to look into the different prospects of Duterte, what to expect in his regime, and forms of populist politics.
Resource speakers included political science instructor Carmel Abao, former Akbayan representative Walden Bello, sociologist and Rappler contributer Nicole Curato, and De La Salle University political science assistant professor Richard Heydarian.
An exchange of political spaces
Since the beginning of Duterte’s term on June 30, Abao was able to note that emerging anti-elite political spaces replaced the value for human rights.
According to Abao, Duterte’s presidency opened up six anti-elite political spaces, namely, anti-criminality, peace with the Left, federalism and constitutional reform, anti-mining & anti-coal, anti-labor contractualization, and anti-US positioning.
With the opening of these anti-elite spaces, Abao believes that Duterte has closed the space for human rights. This, in turn, was seemingly accepted for economic benefits.
“Duterte opens some spaces and closes others. The problem here is that he has closed on vital space, which is human rights. There is no public outrage about human rights violations because it has been accepted as a trade-off for economic rights and safety,” she said.
“While we are having this discourse of human rights, others have a discourse of justice. We must engage with the Duterte presidency critically. Do we accept or reject this trade-off?” she added.
Need for opposition
While Abao focused on political spaces, Bello expressed his views on the necessity for having a critical opposition against the administration in order to protect our existing freedom.
Bello began by establishing how Duterte’s public presence became a voice for the less fortunate, and became a trigger for a new kind of discourse.
“Duterte was not only a voice for the poor, peasants, and lower class. He also provided liberal alternative discourse,” he said.
Given this, Bello said that the opposition, a necessary component of the government, has all but faded away.
“The collapse of the opposition is worrisome, since this administration needs an opposition,” he said.
“Opposition does not mean total opposition, it means critical opposition. Being the opposition is not only good for defending our core values and beliefs, but it is the best way to defend our democracy. The best way to help Duterte deliver his promises is to give him a bigger opposition,” he added.
The populist perspective
Curato discussed how Duterte became an example of how politics has now become stylized, as shown throughout his presidential campaign.
Curato expressed that the reason Duterte is often compared to United States (US) presidential candidate Donald Trump is because populism became a political style.
“Duterte was often compared to the US presidential candidate Donald Trump, but the source of this commonality is when populism is understood not as an ideology, but a political style,” she said.
On the topic of populism, Curato said that Duterte’s behavior became key in what characterized him as a public figure.
“Bad manners have become important in populism. Duterte’s conduct in his first month of presidency is a negotiation between what is appropriate, and what is authentic,” she said.
Moreover, Curato said that Duterte’s image became responsible for the shift in the major concerns of the people.
“While concerns before were about jobs and inflation, when Duterte entered the picture, the top issue became illegal drugs. This is a clear indicator that [Duterte] was able to reframe what the issue really is in societies these days,” she said.
Change is here
Meanwhile, Heydarian discussed how Duterte’s victory in the national elections became a polarizing catalyst in changing how the previous administration was run.
Heydarian expressed that Duterte’s victory became a wake-up call that questioned the freedom which we had fought for.
“The victory of Duterte is a wake-up call. It puts into question our commitment to liberalism,” he said.
According to Heydarian, the economy had grown throughout former president Benigno Aquino III’s term, however, it was not felt by the citizens. Heydarian believes Samuel Huntington’s theory that this may have been a possible cause for political decay.
“Aquino’s promises were superseding developments on the ground. Instead of him rising as a hero, he came more as a polarizing force,” he said.
Lastly, Heydarian expressed that Duterte is now the beginning of a completely new form of governance in the Philippines.
“I think Duterte is the harbinger of the end of the cacique democracy of the Philippines,” he said.
