Ruthless Duterte gets licence from the people

If you thought voting in a self-styled dictator is the nail in the coffin of democracy, then even more of a death knell to political freedom will be the expected reaction from those who have lost out to the Philippines’ new president.

Rodrigo Duterte, a foul-mouthed hard-line reformist from the southern island of Mindanao, won Monday’s election with a landslide majority — the full results of which won’t be officially known until next month.

Even before the 71-year-old’s expected victory, however, there were rumours that his opponents in the camp of outgoing Benigno Aquino III’s Liberal Party (LP) were seeking to impeach the political outsider on grounds of alleged human rights abuses and a supposed failure to declare hidden wealth — two counts he denies.

To the uninitiated, Duterte has built a reputation over the past 30 years as a ruthless mayor of Davao, though his links to the notorious Davao Death Squad, thought to be responsible for the extra-judicial killings of more than 1,000 suspected petty criminals in the city, are unproven.

A huge part of his mandate has been to take his no-nonsense provincial approach to tackling drugs, crime and corruption, nationwide. And when he promises to feed the bodies of thousands more offenders to the fish in Manila Bay — thus eradicating crime within three-six months — it remains hard to separate him from the monstrous image portrayed by his rivals.

His impeachment, however, will be against the will of the people who have democratically elected him into office.

But if such a scenario becomes a reality, Duterte will find few friends in Congress or the Supreme Court to fight his corner and the vice-president will duly assume power. (At the time of going to print, the vice-presidency is a tight race between LP sweetheart Leni Robredo and independent Bongbong Marcos, the son of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos).

With that in mind, Duterte has vowed to shut down Congress and declare martial law should impeachment be sought, which in itself is an affront to the constitution.

Then there’s been talk of his supporters leading a revolution should impeachment be successful, or even his assassination at the hands of his rivals, should their impeachment attempts fail.

All of this — if to be believed — is dangerously spiralling towards civil unrest, though it could just as easily be propaganda pumped out from Duterte’s camp to demonise the opposition, create mass paranoia of conspiracy and pre-ordain himself as a martyr. No one from the LP camp has actually gone on record to say they will work against the new president or even attempt impeachment — though why would they? Reports to the contrary have been proven false.

What’s clear is that for the good of the country, all parties must now work together to ensure Duterte can be given a chance to succeed.

And he has many policies besides the controversial means of fighting crime, drugs and corruption, like spreading economic development nationwide instead of just focusing on Manila, and achieving peace in the war torn south west, where he, as the first president from Mindanao, has key influence.

But to be accepted by his peers he must also moderate. He took advantage of perceived toothlessness in the previous administration to get this far, pandering to the public’s frustrations at political inaction with his hardline promises.

But he knows that the minute he acts upon some of his more outlandish claims — whether that be the endorsement of summary executions or standing up to China over the disputed Spratley Islands — he’s on thin ice.

Therefore, some version of Duterte-lite might be necessary going forward and based upon the success of Davao, there’s no reason to believe why he can’t build upon the positive economic growth of the last administration, while addressing their weaknesses, if given the chance.

If Duterte is not allowed to succeed — either brought about by his own doing or that of others — the future of the Philippines is bleak with or without his impeachment.

In a wider context, Duterte’s rise is just the latest in a long line of more far-right contentions or appointments globally.

Similarities have already been drawn with United States presidential candidate Donald Trump, and although the Philippines doesn’t share the same mass migration fears as America or Europe, where similar hardliners have come to power in Hungary, Poland and Austria, there is a trend occurring nonetheless.

People’s tolerance for democracy appears to be waning and the years of left-wing idealist diplomacy from the likes of US President Barack Obama — or in the case of the Philippines, Benigno Aquino III — have seemingly proven ineffectual. The order of the day seems to be straight-talkers who will stand up for national pride and the perceived greater good — despite the consequences.

The question is, are they just playing to the gallery to win popular opinion or will they actually act upon all that bravado? If they are indeed bluffing, won’t they be as ineffectual as their predecessors with regard to broken promises? And do they actually know what they are doing or are they just profiteers of circumstance?

Duterte may be an early barometer to Trump’s presidency and how that will play out, should the latter get in, of course. But otherwise, you wouldn’t need to turn too far back in the history books to see a past pockmarked by such egos.