More than just English usage
Painful to the eye and ear is the term “presumptive president” being used by the media when referring to Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte. I don’t remember the term being used on Presidents Aquino, Macapagal-Arroyo, Estrada or Ramos while they waited in limbo before taking the oath and assuming office. Where did this creature come from?
My column deadline didn’t allow me to survey the major Philippine newspapers to find out who used it first and in what context, so I turned to Online Oxford English Dictionary that traces the origin of the word “presumptive” to Late Middle English, its roots in: the French présomptif, -ive, the late Latin praesumptivus, from praesumpt- “taken before,” and from the verb praesumere that sounds very much like the English “presume,” an innocent word that takes on a negative connotation when translated into Filipino, as in “presumido” or “nag-aasta” or, to use a colloquialism used by the youth, “feeling.”
Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary provides line breaks for editors and proofreaders as “pre¦sump|tive.” It defines it as an adjective that means “of the nature of a presumption; presumed in the absence of further information or likely to be true, based on the facts that are available.” In this context, we understand that the landslide election victory of Duterte remains tentative until Congress has convened as election canvassers on May 25 and officially declares the election of the president and vice president of the Philippines, who then become “president-elect” and “vice-president-elect” until they take their oath and assume office on June 30.
We often copy from the Americans who describe their waiting president as “president-elect.” Their use of “presumptive” is confined to “presumptive nominee,” referring to an individual seeking, waiting for, or assured of party nomination as president. In English usage, “presumptive” refers to royal succession, with an “heir presumptive” being “an heir whose claim may be set aside by the birth of another heir,” contrasted with the “heir apparent,” who is either: “an heir whose claim cannot be set aside by the birth of another heir” or “a person who is most likely to succeed to the place of another.”
The news that US President Barack Obama delivered his congratulations to Duterte on the phone was carried in all Philippine newspapers, and here again we see the use and abuse of “presumptive president.” This news can be traced to three main sources: Agence France-Presse (AFP), Reuters and the Associated Press (AP), which all reworked the following White House news release that is buried deep when you make an online search:
“The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. For immediate release. May 17, 2016. Readout of the president’s call with President-elect Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines.
“President Obama spoke by phone today with presumptive President-elect Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines to convey his congratulations. President Obama noted that the successful election and record voter participation were emblematic of the Philippines’ vibrant democracy. The President highlighted the enduring values that underpin our thriving alliance with the Philippines and the longstanding ties between our two peoples, including our shared commitments to democracy, human rights, rule of law, and inclusive economic growth. The two leaders affirmed their interest in seeing the relationship continue to grow on the basis of these shared principles.”
The Inquirer and Rappler carried the AFP story with the heading “Obama congratulates president-elect Duterte” but the Rappler story pointed out in the second line of the White House statement that referred to Duterte as “presumptive president-elect.” Patricia Viray of the Star used the AP dispatch in an article that opened this way: “MANILA, Philippines—The White House confirmed that United States President Barack Obama personally congratulated presumptive president Rodrigo Duterte through a phone call. This is the first conversation between Obama and Duterte since the latter declared victory in the May 9 elections.”
Both the Japan Times and the New York Times carried the May 17 AP dispatch “Obama congratulates presumptive Philippine President” that opened with: “WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama offered his congratulations Tuesday to the new presumptive president of the Philippines who has attracted controversy over his iron-fisted approach to law and order.”
Unlike AP and AFP, the Reuters dispatch does not use “presumptive.” Its heading reads: “Obama speaks to Philippines’ president elect, stresses human rights,” and its opening line reads: “WASHINGTON (Reuters)—US President Barack Obama called incoming Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte on Tuesday to congratulate him on his election win, stressing that their countries’ alliance was based on a commitment to human rights and the rule of law, the White House said.” Interaksyon.com did not cite Reuters as its source but it also referred to Duterte as “incoming president” and used the same opening line verbatim.
I tell my students that we go beyond history into historiography, to appreciate the way in which history is constructed. How Duterte is referred to before he assumes office is more than just English usage; it reflects bias. “Presumptive president” may be accurate until the proclamation by Congress, but one’s choice of a less negative term—“leading candidate,” “future president,” “incoming president,” “president-elect,” etc.—reveals one’s bias.
* * *
Comments are welcome at [email protected].
