Man on horseback
He is variously and notoriously known as “the punisher,” “the executioner,” “dirty Harry,” or “the dark knight.” But make no mistake: The stocky, charismatic man who bears an uncanny resemblance to the bolo-waving archetypal dictator of Panama in the mid-1980s, Manuel Noriega, is for real.
If early opinion polls are right and Rodrigo Duterte makes it to Malacañang, the country may be in for a rude awakening and shock. Right now we have only his promises, his platforms, and, of course his Davao City brand of governance as indicators to get a sense of his ability to govern effectively at the national and strategic level. But based on those sparse considerations, Duterte’s presidency has the potential to shake up the entire country. Whether you give him a thumbs up or a thumbs down for his draconian mindset depends on your moral values and ideas on national development.
If there is any consistency in Duterte’s boastful words and braggadocio, it is this: his Machiavellian approach to governance—that he will not hesitate to kill people who cross the forbidden line of crime or get in the way of his initiatives on national discipline. In short, for him the end justifies the means.
This is nothing new in the exercise of ruthless leadership. History provides abundant examples of strong leaders who didn’t hesitate to use the power of the gun and other lethal means in dealing with perceived enemies and rivals. Men like Stalin, Hitler, Fidel Castro, Pinochet and Mao immediately come to mind. But in the democratic theaters of the modern world, such as in the Philippines, Duterte’s type of command leadership stands alone: sui generis. Even Donald Trump’s clamor to put an embargo on Muslims entering Fortress America sounds lame compared to Duterte’s public vow to kill all enemies of the state should he become president.
Let us set aside the man’s penchant to mouth the word “kill.” Many people believe his kill count is mostly colorful language unsupported by fact, despite the declaration of Amnesty International that his reign in peaceful and progressive Davao is tarnished by extrajudicial killings committed by his death squads.
With this in mind, let us focus on his major programs of government. The centerpiece of Duterte’s domestic policy is his aim to transform the Philippines into a viable federal system of government that will significantly devolve power from imperial Manila to the periphery. The idea is to unleash the dormant energy of the provinces by giving them more say in their present condition and future direction. The spinoffs are supposed to result in, among others, the decongestion of gridlocked Metro Manila by the creation of dynamic growth, tourism and investment triangles in Central Luzon, underpinned by Clark and Subic which could be upgraded into a world-class international airport and seaport. Federalism would also be an ideal polity to satisfy restive Muslim, lumad, and other groups who feel disenfranchised or left out of the sociopolitical decision-making process.
Now who can argue with these lofty pragmatic goals? The Philippines has lost more than five decades of national development because, unlike its now more prosperous, more democratic neighbors like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, Filipino leaders chose the wrong path to progress: by putting more importance on cosmetic, elite democracy than order, meritocracy and inclusive growth. They put the proverbial cart before the horse, and we are still paying a heavy price for it.
Even under Marcos’ leadership which was marked by martial law, we could not emerge from the mire of underdevelopment because corrupt crony capitalism, not inclusive, socioeconomic growth, was the real agenda of the dictatorship. That’s why from No. 2 (after Japan) when Marcos took over in 1965, the Philippines went on a downward spiral and carried the tag “sick man of Asia” up to recent years.
Our country is now at a critical juncture in history when it must choose its next president wisely: ideally, a leader who respects the sanctity of life as he or she presides over an unruly, unpatriotic and superstitious populace of over 100 million, which adds 1.7 million babies annually to that total plus more than one million job seekers in the work market yearly; an oligarchic-plutocratic-clerico society where less than 100 families control the largest portion of the economy and where poverty consumes the lives of as much as 35 percent of the population; a “soft state,” in the words of Myrdal, where the government lacks the will to place more responsibility and obligations on its people.
Such a daunting challenge requires a leader of extraordinary vision, program of action, and dedication, a leader who will galvanize and inspire a long-suffering public. Will Duterte measure up to the herculean task? Some of his ideas certainly betray a weak, uncertain grasp of history and human psychology: long on the fear factor but woefully short on the redeeming inspirational part.
For instance, Duterte has on several occasions declared his admiration for Marcos’ authoritarian rule despite its abominable human rights abuses, extravagance and corruption, which combined to set back the country by at least a decade. His public statement that he favors Marcos’ burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani speaks volumes about his affinity with the failed dictatorship. Do we really want to go back to the Marcos years of martial law, during which thousands of innocent lives were lost and destroyed?
It seems that Duterte has not learned the bitter lessons of our recent history. Thus, this man on horseback is bound to repeat them.
Narciso Reyes Jr. ([email protected]) is an international book author and former diplomat. He lived in Beijing in 1978-81 as bureau chief of the Philippine News Agency.
