The rise of the iron-fist ruler

That many Filipinos support an iron-fist ruler in the person of President Duterte signals the emergence of a big number of people searching for an alternative to a democratic form of government.

The concept of a democratic form of government in the Philippines has two faces: one of fiction and the other of reality.

The fictional face is found in our Constitution; it is a government elected by the true will of the people and which genuinely functions to promote their welfare. The face of reality is a government controlled by a conspiracy of political warlords and business elite and which functions with little regard for the welfare of the masses.

The passionate supporters of President Duterte represent those who have grown disgusted with the real face of a supposedly democratic form of government. The zealous support for him is a revolt against the superficiality of Philippine democracy.

The fact that pro-Duterte forces do not waver in their support for him notwithstanding his foul language and his apparent support for extrajudicial killings should not be attributed condescendingly to stupidity and madness. The anti-Duterte forces must objectively look at the possibility that the zealous support for the President represents the prevalence and depth of revulsion against Philippine-style democracy.

The anti-Duterte forces are constantly pointing to his appalling method of governance that has resulted in bloody mayhem in society. But they overlook a disconnect in their debate with the pro-Duterte camp. Critics of the President compare his method of governance with the fictional face of a democratic form of government as written in the Constitution. But the President’s supporters compare him with the real face of Philippine democracy which, in their experience, is characterized by the rule of corrupt warlords and heartless tycoons.

Critics of Mr. Duterte point to justice and economic development as enshrined in the Constitution. His supporters point to widespread criminality and rampant corruption as experienced in their daily reality, and despite the lofty promises of the Constitution that has ruled this country for the past 30 years.

What further complicates matters for critics of the President is the fact that, on their side of the political fence, are political warlords and economic overlords who are despised by his supporters.

Until the critics of the President manage to rid their ranks of the tarnished leaders of the past, they will have great difficulty convincing the opposing camp to withdraw support from him in pivotal numbers. For supporters of Mr. Duterte, it is a choice between a new president with a new way of governance (which, in their hope, offers a better promise of change), and leaders who will perpetuate the old way of governance.

The way forward for the President’s critics is to equally condemn the personalities in their ranks who represent injustice and exploitation. In this way, they cleanse themselves of the blemish of the past, and they will have the moral stature to condemn the President as being no different from the leaders of the past. Mr. Duterte may even be worse because he patronizes the worst of past leaders, such as Ferdinand Marcos and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Here lies the dilemma of Vice President Leni Robredo. She is a leader who does not share the stink of the country’s past leaders, and the bloodied hands of the current leader. However, the fact that Mr. Duterte’s supporters note her continuing association with reviled leaders of the past hobbles her efforts to mount the high horse of political morality.

Leni Robredo needs to disassociate herself from disgraced leaders. She needs to do this in order to show the people that the way forward is to continue with the unfinished journey toward constitutional democracy, and not to turn back and return to the days when, without a real constitution, we were ruled through the barrel of a gun.

* * *

Comments to fleamarketofideas@gmail.com