Defending Digong

The previous post was about Mar Roxas and his empty claims to the Presidency. This post is related to that, but focuses on Mayor Rodrigo Duterte. Specifically, it addresses the questions that arise regarding his personality, his attitude, and his style in government. These questions highlight various dimensions of Mr. Duterte’s fitness for office, or the lack of it, and they will be considered as a whole.

Mr. Duterte infamously cursed the Pope on television, although he later asked and received forgiveness. He made a distasteful joke on being the first in line in raping a woman missionary from Australia who had been held hostage in Davao. In reaction to objections by the ambassadors of the US and Australia, he said, “It would do well for the American ambassador and the Australian ambassador to shut their mouths”; asked what he would do if those countries sever their diplomatic relationship with the Philippines because of his remark, “go ahead and sever it,” he said.

He is separated from his wife (his marriage has been annulled), although she is apparently campaigning for him and they remain “friends”. He is living with a woman who is not his wife, with whom he has a young daughter. His adult children are colorful personalities; literally with their tattooed bodies, figuratively and famously in former Mayor (and currently Davao mayoral candidate) “Inday” Sara Duterte being engaged in a boxing match with an erring court sheriff a few years ago. This is what the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines refers to when it says that Mr. Duterte’s lifestyle “does not reflect the teachings of the Church.”

During this election campaign, Mr. Duterte has called Mr. Roxas “bayot”, which in the context in which he said it does not literally mean “gay” but “weak”. Back in late-2015 near the start of the campaign, the two were engaged in “sampalan” and “suntukan” over the issue of Mr. Roxas’s status as a “graduate” of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.[1]

Most seriously, Mr. Duterte’s critics say he will be a dictator, an authoritarian who has no respect for the rule of law, and who said he would abolish the Congress if it tried to impeach him. He has boasted about killing criminals as his way of restoring peace and order to his city, and really his reputation is that of a strongman, “the Punisher”, “Duterte Harry”, and the “Mad Max” of Davao. “If I become President, it will be bloody,” warns Mr. Duterte in a televised debate.

As a result, it has been very easy for Mr. Duterte’s political opponents, in particular Mr. Roxas, to paint him as an extremist. When Mr. Roxas’s supporters say that Mr. Duterte’s reign will be bloody, one knows where they got the word “blood”. When they say he does not respect human rights, he said so himself. When they say he does not respect women, it comes directly from the horse’s mouth. When they say he will be an embarrassment to the Philippines in front of the entire world, a ruffian without manners and a diplomat without tact, the world already saw the whole thing.

But it is also clear that the whole thing has nothing to do with the Mayor’s track record in government. No one can deny that he has brought peace and order to his city; that Davao is featured as a leading city in BPOs as one of the “Next Wave Cities”; that its seaport in Sasa (developed by the city government) is a model for others; that city services have more than enough ambulances and fire trucks with the most up-to-date model; that Davao is the only city in the Philippines with a working 911-service; that the police CCTV cameras work; that the Mayor’s government—in general—works.

Critics are responding not to the Mayor’s deeds, but to his words; not to his actions, but to his appearance. They are judging not his actual achievements, but his reputation. They condemn his sense of humor, but not his cool ability in government for the past three decades. The critics are taken from the class of people who decry personality-driven politics, but they are the first to criticize Mr. Duterte on the basis of his personality, not his accomplishments.

Is it true that people in Davao do not have the freedom to choose their mayor, that he is a dictator who controls the outcome of elections there? If so, why does he remain popular with Davaoeños?

Is it true that he is an authoritarian in Davao? Maybe, but has the Mayor ever killed someone who criticized him on the radio or in print? Didn't Mr. Duterte's critics know that he only “warned of a revolutionary government should Congress not scrap the pork barrel fund of lawmakers” and that he would close down Congress only if it impeached him after abolishing the PDAF? This quote is from the Philippine Star. 

Is it true that he has no respect for women? Why is Davao the only city in the Philippines with a magna carta for women?

Does blood really run on the streets of Davao, shed by suspected criminals executed without trial? Or does blood run on the same streets, committed by those criminals?

In a Bloomberg poll, analysts selected Senator Grace Poe and Mr. Roxas as the most competent economic managers among the presidential candidates, without mentioning any relevant experience by Sen. Poe. But is Davao among the poorest cities in the Philippines, or the richest?

Mr. Roxas often boasts that he is the candidate with the longest service in national politics, but in all of those years he has demonstrated neither leadership nor ability. His answer in a televised debate was telling. He said he knew the answer to the “laglag-bala” scandal, but all he did was ask for an investigation. Doesn’t one expect that Mr. Duterte would do more?  

All these are rhetorical questions; one knows the answer to them. That all the answers are favorable to Mr. Duterte is the main reason why he is leading in pre-election polls.

Duterte supporters do not take him at his word; they have his track record as evidence. For instance, when Mr. Duterte claimed that he will clean the country up in 3-6 months, critics immediately pounced on it as being unrealistic. But that claim is not the reason why his supporters believe in him; they have his track record in government to back up their vote. The same cannot be said of Mr. Roxas, or the other presidential candidates.

---

[1] Since Mr. Roxas took his Bachelor’s degree in Economics at Wharton but did not take an MBA there, Mr. Duterte took issue with his use of the word Wharton “graduate”. Mr. Roxas responded that he was nevertheless graduated from the same school and so should be entitled to say he is a graduate of Wharton. Although a Wharton alumnus later said that Bachelor’s degree holders are referred to as graduates of UPenn, not Wharton, social media in general gave the “victory” to Mr. Roxas, who actually could prove his Bachelor’s degree. However, in the US and elsewhere, when one says “Wharton graduate” one assumes right away a Wharton MBA graduate, not a UPenn undergrad. If Mr. Roxas pretended to be more than he really was, it would not be the first time—just see the previous post.