Duterte's brand of cacique-ism
At least three decades ago, the Cory Aquino-led people’s power toppled the fourteen years of Marcos’ dictatorship and restored democracy in the Philippines. EDSA (1986) ended the exploitation of the state’s resources perpetuated through crony capitalism, warlordism, monopolies and abuse of power in many forms. The fall of martial law promised a better Philippines – or did it?
Cory Aquino, while ending the dictatorial regime, nonetheless, rebuilt the elite-dominated democratic structures weakened by authoritarian Ferdinand Marcos during her 1986-1992 administration (Anderson, 1988) making her an “elite restorationist,” according to Benedict Anderson. The executive and legislative branches of her administration were filled again by traditional, resource-rich and dynastic political families who were largely in control of power, people and property (3Ps) in the pre-martial law period.
Thirty years passed but the same old nagging problems beset the country. Nothing much has improved as promised by the triumph of EDSA. Unemployment continued to soar, armed conflict almost regularly displaced thousands of people, natural resources were fed to the exploits of multinationals, traffic had worsened, health condition had degenerated, the rich became richer and the poor, poorer – all these are reminiscent of the martial law days or even worse.
No wonder, the Filipinos have mustered so much frustration, either consciously or unconsciously, over the years in their continuing search for that elusive genuine development. This is the same frustration that brought us all to the streets of EDSA in 1986. The cacique democracy that defined the Philippine political landscape pulled the country down to its lowest in some recent years with the exemption of a few intermittent better-performing-though-not-sustainable administrations. The country is therefore desperate in finding a better alternative than the “cacique parasitical” relationship which only benefited the privileged class and marginalized further the downtrodden.
The question now is, did the 2016 elections end the Philippine’s cacique democracy? Was Rodrigo R. Duterte the new face of Philippine politics?
In Timberman’s Elite Democracy Disrupted, he said that “the sixteen-million Filipinos who voted for him appear to have done so because they are tired of what they see as ineffective and often corrupt political leadership, and they believe that Duterte is a courageous leader capable of delivering real change (2016).”
Capitalizing on the promise of change by bringing crimes down, eradicating drugs, pursuing peace and using Davao as his principal exhibit, Duterte was able to catapult himself from the bottom of the pre-election surveys to the top just weeks before election day, and eventually the presidency. His charisma, lack of pretentions, tough-talking, and sincere heart for the poor appealed to the electorates across all social strata as an antidote to the decades-long rule of the elite class.
However, I see Duterte as nothing much different from his predecessor ruling elites though packaged in a populist authoritarianism despite his self-confession of being a socialist. He may not be the cacique as described by Benedict Anderson, who, like the coopted chieftains of the Spanish colonizers became feudal lords.
Instead, he manifests cacique mentality able to wield power and wealth upon people and institutions especially opposed to him. In Dr. Sylvia Estrada-Claudio’s “The Cacique in our Midst,” (Rappler, September 14, 2014) she pointed out that elitism as a mentality can come from the poor once they have made it to the top. Even the lower middle class can think, speak and act like caciques.
Duterte is no exemption. It may not be absolutely true that he is a self-made man and that his humble origins made him more appealable to the poor. His great ancestors were known established politicians in Danao, Cebu before his father Atty. Vicente Duterte and mother Soledad Roa transferred to Davao where the former became Governor in 1959. His mother was a public school teacher until her retirement in 1952 and eventually became the leader of the “yellow Friday” movement against the Marcos dictatorship (Filipino Genealogy Project, 2015). In short, the Dutertes have already carved their niche of power in Davao as early as 1950s and Digong has benefited from that.
When he took his oath of office as the 16th President of the Republic of the Philippines, he committed to be guided by the rule of law in his relentless campaign against drug syndicates and that he will honor all treaty obligations of the Philippines under different international human rights conventions. However, we also heard him several times issuing a death warrant to all human rights defenders should his targets would not come to fruition.
During the campaign period, he was applauded when he vowed never to declare martial law since it did not do us good historically. But just barely a year in office, he subjected the entire island of Mindanao under martial rule with threats of extending it to the entire nation. He also jokingly promised to board a jet ski and plant the Philippine flag in one of the disputed islands in West Philippine sea. But despite the international tribunal’s favorable decision to the Philippines, his administration now takes a back seat and makes concessions for a joint exploration agreement.
President Duterte proudly carried as his flagship exhibits landmark legislations in Davao. Aside from the firecracker and smoking bans, he presented as an added value being the first if not among the pioneering LGUs to have legislated a Women’s Development Code and Anti-Discrimination Ordinance. Yet, he finds nothing wrong with catcalling (Mariz Umali case), sexist jokes (VP Leni case) and womanizing (Speaker Alvarez case) at the same time uses homosexuality oftentimes to demean those who dissent (recent Gascon case).
In the aid of fast-tracking the peace negotiations with the CPP-NPA-NDFP, Duterte installed left-allied and progressive cabinet secretaries like Lopez, Taguiwalo, and Mariano. But under the excuse of the iron curtain rule of separation of powers, he washed his hands and said there is nothing he can do about it despite the CA being dominated by his political allies. This is quite contrary to his use of strong-arm politics in pushing for the restoration of death penalty where party members who voted against it were stripped off of their committee leadership.
The above-cited instances are exemplifications of his “cacique-ism.” Poisoned by the power that corrupts, the hubris in him can easily transform the Duterte loved by the 16 million voters to the monster that everybody will disdain. As a Davaoeno and having him as a mayor for 23 years, I was praying so hard that when he won as President, he will not self-destruct. Unless, he takes control of the reins of his sanity, he can still probably be the anti-thesis to cacique elitism in the Philippines.
To me, the hope that Duterte brought in the 2016 elections is still blurred by the veil of ironies. Most often than not, he is an oxymoron himself. The incoherence and inconsistency in his actions and pronouncements largely brought by his impulsive decision making will lead the nation in disarray. We are yet to substantiate what is in the rhetoric of change.
But just like what Timberman said: “Whether that change will revitalize or damage Philippine democracy will depend on the level of support Duterte receives from the Filipino public as well as the response of elite groups and key institutions (2016).” Apparently, the President still enjoys an unprecedented support and trust from the people.
But, we cannot also underestimate the power of these people. Duterte must mot not forget that he is, just like many other presidents, a president by plurality and not by majority. We have done it before. There is no reason why it cannot be done again. After all, salus popli est suprema lex, the welfare of the people is the supreme law. It is for us to decide now: are we in for genuine democracy or are we up for another dictatorship?
Cited References
Anderson, Benedict. 1988. Cacique Democracy in the Philippines: Origins and Dreams, New Left Review 1 (169), pp. 3-31.
Estrada-Claudio, Sylvia. September 14, 2014. The Cacique in Our Midst. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/views/67808-cacique-culture
Filipino Genealogy Project. November 24, 2015. The Race to Halalan 2016: The Genaealogy of Rodrigo Duterte. http://fil-gen-pro.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-race-to-halalan-2016-genealogy-of.html
Timberman, David G., 2016. Elite Democracy Disrupted?, Journal of Democracy, 27 (4), pp. 135-144.
(Photo from The Journey Blogger)
