Duterte's honeymoon period is almost over-an interim review

Duterte's honeymoon period will end on October 8th next. Some people, mainly supporters of the president, say that a lot has changed already. And they are right. The question is whether this is the change they anticipated, were hoping for and that benefits (the people of) the Philippines?

1. The 'war' on drugs is the main issue of the presidency until now. Statistically there is not really a justification for this 'war'. There is no reason to believe that a well performing law enforcement and judicial system complemented by a good rehabilitation program could not be able to tackle this problem within the rule of law. The conclusion is maybe that the president got his priorities wrong by choosing to kill as many users and pushers as possible. The conclusion also could be that this 'war' is no more than a diversion.

2. The vassals of the president used the honeymoon period to create solid majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives, to mute most of the opposition voices and to free themselves from possible preventive suspension for their previous acts of graft and corruption. House speaker Alvarez seeks to amend section 13 of Republic Act proposed by filing House Bill 3605 which makes preventive suspension by the Sandiganbayan of members of Congress impossible. Who really believes this is the right signal?

3. De Lima was ousted from the chair of the senate's justice committee. This as a result of the relentless effort of the president to destroy her, because she had the temerity to question the Davao Death Squad and Duterte's involvement therein. The president apparently prefers to fight personal battles above fighting corruption and cleaning the government agencies and institutions on all levels. The media naturally tuck into this bout, which distracts attention from a lot of other things.

4. The president seeks domestic peace. He started negotiations with the communist party (CPP/NPA an NDFP) whose only aim is to push through their CASER (Comprehensive Agreement on Socio-Economic Reforms)  agenda, aiming at the nationalization of 19 industries, among which are oil, steel and mining. We still have to wait and see where these negotiations will go from October 6th next. On the other hand federalism seems to be accepted as the sole the solution for peace in Mindanao. Maybe a little bit too bluntly.

5. Duterte's rapprochement with the domestic CPP matches his rapprochement with Russia and China. While there could be a positive sentiment about taking a more independent stands towards the United States, there at the same time can be many questions on his strategy. He might end up having no other choice in case he continues to bash, curse and insult the USA, the UN and the EU and to chase away western investors. He also appears to be betting on Trump as the next president of the USA.

6. Since he took office Duterte's showy lovemaking to the National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines is obvious. Slowly but certainly follow and obey will replace serve and protect. When push comes to shove the question will be whether police and army will defend the constitution and the people or the president and his cronies? 

7. Duterte is close to the Macos family. He promised and approved the burial of the former dictator at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. A quote of Milan Kundera perfectly illustrates and explains what happens here :

“The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster…The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” 

We still have to see how the Supreme Court is going to react.

8. The cabinet members Duterte appointed are close friends, allies from his Davao and Arroyo time , former classmates and people he owes a favor. Not meritocracy but nepotism. Just look at his chief legal counsel, Mr. Salvador Panelo and ask yourself: Is this the best Duterte could do? Look at his Secretary of the Department of Justice, Mr. Vitaliano Aguirre II and ask yourself (or former Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, by the way where is she?) the same question. I like to believe here are some exceptions, but they still have to take their stands.

 
9. Everything that goes wrong now in the economy of course is the fault of other people or countries (especially the USA) and for sure not a consequence of the behavior of the president. There seems to be a tremendous lack of self-criticism. The strategy is: Kill them first and then apologize. There is not much carefulness in his political behavior. His first visit abroad, after attending the ASEAN summit in Laos, is to Vietnam, which -like Laos- is one of the few one party  socialist states in the world!

10. It would be appropriate to get an overview of the goals, actions and eventual results of all departments during the first 100 days of Duterte's government as to focus the attention of people and media on the really important issues like creating jobs, fighting poverty and corruption and improving equality. 

The ‘war’ on (illegal) drugs in the Philippines

Between political rhetoric and evidence based policy

On May 9^th Rodrigo Duterte was elected to be the 16^th President of the Philippines. He took office on the 30^th of June 2016. Together with his running mate Alan Peter Cayetano, Duterte betted successfully on a law and order agenda. In an article published in the New York Times on September 11^th 2016 Amanda Taub illustrates the probable background for Dutere’s victory and policy.

“It tends to begin, the research suggests, with a weak state and a population desperate for security. Short-term incentives push everyone to bad decisions that culminate in violence that, once it has reached a level as bloody as that in the Philippines, can be nearly impossible to stop.” (Fat & underline by JvD)

“When people begin to see the justice system as thoroughly corrupt and broken, they feel unprotected from crime. That sense of threat makes them willing to support vigilante violence, which feels like the best option for restoring order and protecting their personal safety.”

“Surprisingly, that includes increased support for the use of harsh extralegal tactics by the police themselves. “This seems counterintuitive,” Ms. Santamaria (a professor at the Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology in Mexico City) said. “If you don’t trust the police to prosecute criminals, why would you trust them with bending the law?”

But to people desperate for security, she said, the unmediated punishment of police violence seems far more effective than waiting for a corrupt system to take action.

And so, over time, frustration with state institutions, coupled with fear of crime and insecurity, leads to demand for authoritarian violence — even if that means empowering the same corrupt, flawed institutions that failed to provide security in the first place.”

On August 23^rd PNP-chief Ronald dela Rosa stated that since July 1^st (54 days of Duterte Government) 1,916 people were killed, 756 in police operations and 1160 in extra judicial killings. On September 1^st 2016 the death toll had risen to 2,446, an average of almost 40 a day.

“Leaders like Mr. Duterte have a political incentive to exploit this sentiment, marketing their willingness to go around the system to prove that they are willing to do whatever it takes to solve the country’s problems.

“When you have a weak government that faces a security crisis and also a crisis of trust of the people, the issue of promising more punishment is a shortcut to gain citizens’ confidence, to gain support,” Ms. Santamaria said.

Why not instead promise to fix the real underlying problems?

First, because institutional reform isn’t as politically appealing as identifying villains — in the case of the Philippines, criminal gangs — and promising to take them down. Second, because the very state weakness that created the problems often means that leaders are incapable of fixing the underlying issues.”

Declaring a ‘war’ most of the time involves quite some war-rhetoric. “I will kill you. I will kill them all. Come to this country and I will kill you” and so on. This tough language is Duterte’s trade mark and until now he gets away with it. He is also known for his continuous attempts to go around the judicial system of which he himself has been a part and thus has first-hand information of its dysfunction.

On September 2^nd there was a ‘bomb’-attack on the massage area of the night market at Roxas Avenue in (out of all places) Davao City (Duterte’s daughter Sara is the incumbent Mayor of Davao) in which 14 people had been killed. The day after President Duterte declared the state of ‘Lawlessness’ or ‘Lawless Violence’. The declaration was based on Article VII Section 18 of the Constitution which states that "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion." Still quite some people wonder what this ‘State of Lawless Violence’ really means for their daily lives. The most probable answer is: Nothing at all.

(The lack of reliable) Facts & Figures on illegal drugs

To begin with, it is not quite clear when something becomes or is a problem in or for a given society, let alone a problem that deserves a ‘war’ to solve it and by the way, wars thus far haven’t solved many problems without causing new ones. Furthermore it is not always easy to find reliable statistics on different subjects.

In the Philippines for instance every year there are more than 10,000 deadly victims in traffic. Is that a problem? Does it lead to a ‘war’ against car-owners?  If anything, the government will probably choose to improve infrastructure, law-enforcement and drivers education.

Looking at the number of addicts to illegal drugs in the Philippines the numbers that are available vary from 1,3 to 3,7 million. Figures from the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) show that back in 2004 that number seems to have been 6,7 million and has since then decreased with about 50 to 80%, depending on what you believe is the actual figure. In fact, the truth is, we don’t even know exactly what we are talking about, but we know it’s a problem. The first step in defining government policy projects should be the gathering of independently gained and verifiable data.  In the USA 10% of the population above 12 years of age seems to be addicted. Yet there is no ‘war’ on drugs there. For the sake of Duterte’s war let’s assume that every addict is one too much and that there is a zero-tolerance policy towards the trade in and the use of illegal drugs.  Let’s furthermore assume that Duterte’s figure of 3,7 million addicts is accurate. If we look at the profile of users we see predominantly male users, between 21 and 29 years old, more than 50% unemployed and with an average monthly income of less than 11,000 pesos.

What’s the target?

Until today there is, as far as I know, no concrete, SMART goalsetting for the ‘war’ on drugs. What does the Duterte government want to achieve? In case of a zero-tolerance policy it would be logical to get rid of 3,7 million addicts and the whole supply system. Let’s do the math. 600,000 addicts have surrendered until now and promised that they will not use drugs anymore. Of course there is no guarantee that they won’t, but that’s another problem and for the time being they are safe. That leaves 3,1 million addicts to deal with. In average 5,000 people per year enter a rehabilitation program. In six years that are 30,000 people. Still 3 million and 70 thousand to go. If the killing rate of in average 40 a day continues this means that in six years 87,600 people will die, which leaves at the end of Duterte’s reign a little bit less than 3 million people to deal with. But the president promised to solve the ’problem’ in three to six months! So the big question is: What is he going to do? What is the plan? What is the program? Does the government presume that those 3 million people will get so scared that they stop using spontaneously and/or surrender too?  And if we kill the demand there will be no more supply. That’s market economy, isn’t it?

What’s the action plan?

I will kill them all and feed them to the fishes in Manila Bay? One hell of a plan! And still there are people who are very impressed. But the real question is: Why is who (together with whom) going to do what, how, where, when and with which resources? A comprehensive action plan might include the supply side, the demand side as well as the law enforcement and judicial side. How is the government going to attack the big suppliers/syndicates (together with China, Indonesia and others)?  Will there be a PNP focus on the den’s where shabu is produced in the Philippines? China already offered some help with rehabilitation centers. How about programs in schools (education), poverty reduction programs (which are likely to solve 50% of the problem) and job creation (the ‘war’ might frighten some foreign investors and thus prove to be contra-productive). What about cleaning up the government-agencies, the PNP/AFP and the judiciary? What about restoring the trust of the people in these institutions (including the Senate and The House) because they are corruption free and functioning effective and efficient? Of course this approach requires a lot more effort than pulling a gun and kill and it isn’t a popular agenda from the political point of view. But let’s be frank, where the government gives up on laws, the freedom of the people no longer exists. The law of jungle rules and in the end society will collapse. The choice is between the rule of law and the rule of force! The design, implementation and monitoring of a comprehensive action plan is far more desirable than the current wild and uncontrolled ‘war’, with an uncertain outcome.