Populism
The coming presidency of Rodrigo Duterte is taking more twists and turns than many expected, setting off roller-coaster emotions among both supporters and critics.
Human rights defenders protested when Duterte said he would restore the death penalty, with a graphic description of how hanging would be used. But the double-dead threats have come with promises to release all political prisoners, which elates many human rights groups.
Conversely, the promise to release political detainees and offers of Cabinet positions to the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), have dismayed more conservative Duterte supporters who expected a tough law-and-order stance, with activists, the National Democratic Front (NDF), and the CPP included as targets.
Amid all this, a book review in the British newspaper The Guardian caught my eye and sent me into Amazon, only to find that the book won’t be available until June 1 (at a hefty $61). Nevertheless, the review provided enough information for me to think harder about Duterte, and populism in the Philippines.
The book is Benjamin Moffitt’s “The Global Rise of Populism,” which is the result of his doctoral research at the University of Sydney. Moffitt’s interest in populism came out of his native Australia, where he grew up during the era of populist politician Pauline Hanson, whose racist views he found “abhorrent.” But, precisely because such “abhorrent” ideas seemed to have a wide following, he was intrigued enough to go into a global review of populism.
The book will probably be a best-seller considering how, in recent years, populist politicians have gained power worldwide. Moffitt is probably following the news now about Duterte and, halfway across the world, Donald Trump, the presumptive (why does it sound like “presumptuous” to me?) Republican nominee in the current US electoral circus.
Flexibility
Moffitt’s book is anchored on an important characteristic of populist politicians: They are not bound by a consistent ideology. It is flexibility that becomes a populist’s greatest asset. We’re certainly seeing that in Duterte who, while declaring himself a socialist, is not with any political party. Certainly not with the CPP, despite some of the almost funny speculation in social media. (In one online fire fight, someone said Duterte was “UP Diliman KM,” drawing reactions from others who clarified, correctly, that he is from Lyceum, where he once had CPP founder Jose Ma. Sison as a teacher.)
Populist leaders, Moffitt suggests, are performers. One could argue that all politics is grand theater, and that politicians are actors (and in the Philippines, actors are politicians). But for Moffitt, populist leaders are far more intentionally performative, and, from excerpts of his book, I’d suggest populist leaders even set up their own stage, scenes and props.
Instead of abstract ideological issues, populists latch on to and amplify people’s main anxieties, making people feel, Moffitt says, that “we’re on the precipice of failure at all times.” In Duterte’s case, this was zeroing in on street and neighborhood crime. Everyone could relate to that: the upper class feeling besieged by “squatters” all around and putting up walls that would shame Jericho, complete with barbed wire charged with electricity; the middle class in mortal fear of being robbed in broad daylight while in a jeep, taxi or bus; the urban poor who know that their neighbor sells shabu or, worse, operates a drug den for users.
Enter the populist politician with promises of, and here I’m quoting a passage that resonates for all of us: “strong, swift simplistic action that sweeps aside the cautious deliberations and negotiations that normally characterize liberal democracy.”
Political incorrectness
Moffitt says that “bad manners,” including political incorrectness, are also important for populists. In both the United States and the Philippines, these “bad manners” were predicted, over and over again, as possibly leading to the downfall of the populist politician. But Moffitt says that on the contrary, bad manners are essential to the populist style, especially when coming from a less privileged class (Duterte’s parents were middle-class) and up against politicians from the elite (in our case, Mar Roxas especially, and the ruling Liberal Party).
Moffitt observes that the bad manners will include sexual bragging, and cites Ecuadorian President Abdala Bucaram boasting of his “big balls” and Trump of the size of his hands. Duterte is mild compared to those two when it comes to bragging about personal assets, but he exceeded them with his joke about the Australian missionary raped and killed in prison.
Because politics and media are now so intertwined, Moffitt writes, populism becomes more tempting for even mainstream politicians. Again we see that in the Philippines, with social media in particular becoming so important in shaping a politician’s image. Gone are the days of rhetorical promises; now politicians have to brand themselves, and where they used to fear controversies, they now know scandals can add to their popularity.
Staying in power
After I put down the book review, I thought: Winning an election is always the easy part with populist politicians, but staying in power and being able to effectively govern are far more difficult.
Staying in power will require even more of that populism, but now in the face of realpolitik. Duterte will have to play according to the rules of the game, including a coalition government to win over the elite, and restrain to some extent the restlessness of the masses. He will need the cooperation of the military and the police, as well as of the CPP/NDF which does have a large organized following among workers, peasants and students.
I see parallels with the Cory Aquino presidency, which started out as a rainbow coalition that included the Left. The response came swiftly: military coup attempts and assassinations of Left (and I mean here CPP/NDF-affiliated) leaders. The Left is wiser now, and warier.
I do think that populist leaders have more than political power in mind. They tend to be people who believe they can bring about radical change, with popular support.
The bottom line, too, beyond the theatrical performances, is that the Duterte victory came largely because of the people’s disillusionment with elite politics. This time around, it was being fed up with not just empty promises but with outright incompetence that has led to daily trials and tribulations for Filipinos across classes. Besides the feeling of a state of siege from criminality, there are the drought-stricken farmers met with bullets when they rallied for help; indigenous peoples’ homes and schools burned down so that they have to leave their ancestral lands; and urbanites packed like cattle in deteriorating LRT and MRT trains. Even members of the upper class had their complaint, such as not getting their car plates or driver’s licenses on time. Also, most of the time government inefficiency was wrongly interpreted as corruption, eroding the claims of daang matuwid (straight path).
I want to believe that Duterte and his advisers do care about these issues. They have to, for the sake of the nation, and for their own.
* * *
