PH democracy in the crucible

On July 4, 1946, the Philippines gained its independence from America, the world’s icon of democracy. The Philippines then became the first independent democracy in Southeast Asia, a distinction that was envied by many, including Indonesia.

But Achmed Sukarno, who became the first president of Indonesia, expressed at that time his reservations about the capacity of Filipinos to govern the country, claiming that as Asians, we were not civilized enough to conduct ourselves under a true democracy because we were not yet politically mature and we still lacked the hard discipline to temper our emotions when faced with decisions requiring objectivity and transparency. Of course this was refuted by Sergio Osmeña Sr., Manuel Roxas and other political leaders of the country.

Later, because Indonesia, a neighbor-country, trailed behind the Philippines in the Asian perspective, despite its larger size and population, Sukarno decided to see firsthand how democracy worked in the Philippines. In 1948, the Indonesian dictator made an official visit to Manila and one of the places he visited was the University of Santo Tomas.

As an ROTC officer at the time, I was assigned to serve as a member of the detail that served as his honor guard during his stay. I witnessed firsthand how he was impressed by what he saw. In his speech, he praised the Philippines’ leadership for its success in maintaining peace and order while moving ahead in the region. With confidence, he expressed a bright outlook for the Maphilindo, an association composed of Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia.

Times have changed since then. Although the earmarks of progress are here—e.g., modern buildings, expensive brand-new cars, public transport system, business establishments and prestigious universities—the political will of the people has deteriorated.

Presently, social media is replete with stories of graft and corruption in government, poor traffic management, crimes of passion, illicit drug use, robberies, pockets of rebellion in Mindanao and illegal bank deals, all this creating a sense of hopelessness in the public mind.

In such setting, the call for a change in leadership resonated among the people in the last elections, and presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte surprisingly won over his rivals who held positions much higher or more influential than his being the mayor of Davao City. And this, despite the controversies he sparked with his public statements, during debates and  in media interviews, for which he created the following impressions:

1. that he was disrespectful to the pope, bishops, priests and religious;

2. that he had a low regard for women;

3. that he was a foul mouth;

4. that he would disregard due process in dealing with drug lords, addicts and crooked cops by resorting to summary executions;

5. that he was a threat to press freedom, with deep prejudices against media people;

6. that his promise to solve criminality and corruption in the country in three to six months was an impossible dream;

7. that he was insincere and told so many lies;

8. that he was a womanizer;

9. that he lacked civility and, therefore, was not qualified to represent the Philippines and Filipino people on the international stage.

Still, Mr. Duterte won the presidency by an overwhelming vote margin unprecedented in the history of  national elections, which implies that, by and large, the vast majority of Filipino voters are uncouth, rowdy, impolite, impulsive and unsophisticated. It also invited speculations, if not fears, that in the next six years of Mr. Duterte’s presidency, democracy in the Philippines will be in great danger and that military rule and dictatorship are in the offing.

But then the bottom line is, President-elect Duterte is a veteran politician and understands quite well the Filipino culture and behavior. His controversial words and actions during the campaign period may have been just a stratagem to project himself according to what he perceived people wanted of a president. His ultimate goal and real intention? Winning the presidential race.

Now that the first important phase of his plans has been successfully achieved, the critical question is: Will he perform the way he is expected to solve the country’s problems, like what he did in Davao City as mayor? We will know the answer in the first 100 days starting July 1, 2016.

With this, I am reminded of something I read about Dwight Eisenhower when he assumed the presidency of the United States: A jurist friend of his told him to make the best of the inaugural 100 days in office as the impression they would create will have a lasting influence on the rest of his incumbency.

In President Duterte’s case we may speculate to our heart’s content or to our profound dismay. The reality will reveal who gets the big laugh or the repulsive cry.

Those days may also indicate whether Philippine democracy will survive the crucible of the next six years.

Santiago A. del Rosario, MD, is a former president of the Philippine Medical Association.

View comments

TAGS: democracy, Indonesia, Rodrigo Duterte