'Dutertards' versus 'Yellowtards': a non-productive discussion

More than 16 million people voted Rodrigo Duterte into the presidency on May 9th 2016. Approximately 26 million cast their vote on one of the other candidates, with Mar Roxas in second place (10 million). Duterte took office on June 30th 2016.

During the campaign and even more after the elections the Philippines split up, despite a call from almost all candidates to unite. The division became even deeper after Duterte really started his' war' on illegal drugs in which until the 3rd week of September 3,338 people were killed in both police operations and by extra judicial or vigilante-style killings .

It's 'Dutertards' versus 'Yellowtards' (Yellow is the color of the Liberal Party) now. Back and forth the supporters use nouns and adjectives to picture and call each other names. There's practically no serious content driven discussion between the representatives of both camps.

The level of discussion is approximately as follows: You 'Yellowtards' are crybabies, crying for the human rights of criminals and not for those of the victims. Do criminals care about human rights? Why should we care about theirs? You are elitist, born with a golden spoon, moralists that never had to worry about the price of rice.  You 'Dutertards' are delusional, lazy, stupid, ignorant, retarded, trolls and uneducated morons. Your president abuses his power to kill innocent people and empowers you to threaten and become killers yourself. He creates the rule of jungle and abolishes the rule of law.

I tend to believe that this level of discussion will not help the country going forward.

To assume that all 16 million people that voted for Duterte are stupid, retarded, ignorant and uneducated idiots most likely doesn't match with reality. A survey conducted by Pulse Asia between 2 and 8 July 2016 showed that 91% of the Filipinos trusted their new president, which means that far more than the 16 million who voted for him are still happy with the outcome of the election. Why?

Rodrigo Duterte shows his middle-finger to the world. He uses strong and understandable language. He promises to fight poverty, corruption, criminality and drugs. He talks peace with the communists and the Moros. He says he will fight the oligarchs who and the mining industry that robs and destroys the country only for personal gain and profit. He takes a firm stand on cleaning up the government. Duterte presents himself  as independent and unconventional. That is what people like about him. He can hardly be called a representative of the traditional political order. Change is his trademark.

There is at least some logic in the election result. According to Einstein's definition it would be a sign of insanity to vote for the traditional politicians, for the representatives of the political dynasties and expect a different outcome or change. I know, Duterte himself is a representative of a dynasty too, however on a different (local) level. Many Filipinos gave him the benefit of the doubt. He carries a heavy burden on his shoulders to live up to his promises and deliver. The 'war' on drugs and his witch hunt for Senator De Lima, the way high profile drug lords are presented in a probe of the House of Representatives or are able to leave the country until now are tolerated and even defended by millions desperately longing for change. However the first cracks in the bastion are showing. Even if criminals don't respect human rights that is not a good reason to lower yourself or the country to their level.

More than 25% of the Filipino people are still living in poverty and below the poverty line. Inequality increases every day. The workforce is abused, wages are too low to sustain and maintain a family. Corruption also is a consequence of poverty. What would you do if you have to support a family and earn 10,000 pesos a month?

Duterte's focus has to change rapidly to show results in his fight against poverty and corruption. If not he's likely to lose support much faster than he might expect. An uplift of the discussion level between 'Dutertards' and the rest might help to detect the right course for the country.

The Socialist Republic of the Philippines in the making?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Independent foreign policy?

We, the Philippines, have an independent foreign policy, that is based on our constitution. Big words again form the Duterte government. But what do those words really mean?

Every country has an independent foreign policy in the sense that countries themselves determine what their political, economic, military and cultural relationship to other countries is, should or could be.

Our world however is interconnected and interdependent. Almost everything that happens in one place has its influence on other places. Independence is no more than a theoretical proposition and part of an old, outlived paradigm in foreign policy. It's part of the (secret) 'games' our politicians out of narrow minded self-interest, influenced by the big businesses and so called national security agencies, still play. It's why they have led us from one unnecessary war to the next and lost the trust of so many people.It's why in so many countries democracy is under severe pressure.

The time of colonialism indeed lays long behind us, although some people (like President Duterte) haven't forgot it and there is nothing wrong with not forgetting even when the memory sometimes seems to be selective.

Although there might be no hard, open pressure, there surely is soft and hard unseen pressure on countries foreign policies. We are not likely to hear harsh words of Duterte against Russia, Saudi-Arabia, the United Arabic Emirates, Qatar or Malaysia. Why not? Because for more than 90% the Philippines is depending on their oil. Even the forced repatriation of 11,000 OFW's, who lost their jobs in Saudi-Arabia didn't provoke any hard words from the President. No, he simply allocated 249 million pesos to bring them home, because the government of The Philippines doesn't want them to become a burden to the host nation, one of the richest countries in the world.

President Duterte is not only fighting a' war' against illegal drugs, but also his own mini-'war' against the United States of America, a country that he apparently doesn't like very much. So what we are witnessing is a change in the foreign policy course of the Philippines. Duterte is looking for new close friends in Asia and especially wants a closer relationship to China and Russia. That is what independent foreign policy really means. That's why the South-Chinese Sea issue will be settled between The Philippines and China, much to the discomfort of the United States, whose foreign policy is mainly aimed at encircling Russia and China with the help of numerous allies.

The new paradigm for foreign policy however should acknowledge that we all are interdependent on this earth and that we have a shared responsibility to preserve and share this planet we live on for our children and grandchildren, a responsibility to keep it livable, safe, secure and peaceful for all. We cannot on the one hand condemn a nation or nations for not interfering when a dictator slays his own people and at the same time defend the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a country. Everything that happens at any place on this earth is of our business. Narrow minded self-interest is not a good compass to sail by.

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.

Beste ome Henk en tante Ingrid

Het is alweer meer dan een maand geleden sinds mijn laatste brief.

De 'oorlog' tegen de illegale drugs heeft hier inmiddels meer dan 400 mensen het leven gekost. De president lijkt ervan overtuigd te zijn dat zijn aanpak vruchten af zal werpen. Meer moordenaars op straat om de drugsgebruikers en handelaren ongestraft om te leggen maakt de samenleving vanzelfsprekend veiliger. Natuurlijk vallen vooral de internationale organisaties en media over Duterte heen. Hier op de Filipijnen valt het wel mee met de kritiek. Afgezien van een paar professoren, priesters, studenten, mensenrechtenactivisten en bloggers is er vrijwel geen kritiek. Wie openlijk kritiek uit loopt overigens het risico om door de malcontenten en non-valeurs die op Duterte gestemd hebben aangesproken of erger te worden. Dan maar liever zwijgen en afwachten. Gebruikers en handelaren lijken zich en masse vrijwillig over te geven. Niemand weet wat er daarna met hen gebeurt. Geen plan. Het lijkt erop dat enkele leegstaande kazernes gebruikt gaan worden om rehabilitatie programma's uit te voeren.

De aandacht van de president richt zich intussen op de grote jongens. De hoge politiefunctionarissen die in dienst van de handelaren zijn, de burgemeesters die hen beschermen en de druglords zelf, die zich moeten overgeven. Zijdelings pakt hij nog de een of andere oligarch aan en niet te vergeten de illegale ontgrondingen door de mijnindustrie. De aanpak mag gerust onconventioneel genoemd worden. Wie geknipt en geschoren wordt doet er goed aan doodstil te blijven zitten. Als je 900 miljoen dollars op de bank hebt is dat ook niet zo moeilijk. Dan neem je gewoon zes jaar vakantie op. Laten we wel wezen, de traditionele aanpak van drugscriminaliteit heeft tot nog toe niet geleid tot substantiele resultaten. Die aanpak houdt wat mensen aan het werk en die hebben er vervolgens natuurlijk geen belang meer bij het probleem daadwerkelijk op te lossen omdat ze dan hun baan zouden verliezen. Er valt dus wel degelijk ook iets voor die onconventionele aanpak te zeggen.

De grote vraag echter is wat er gaat gebeuren als Duterte de corruptie hier aan gaat pakken. Hij wil een schone overheid. Dat betekent waarschijnlijk niet minder dan de ineenstorting van die overheid. Vrijwel elke politicus, rechter of ambtenaar is hier corrupt. De senaat kan naar huis, het huis van afgevaardigdenloopt leeg en verdwijnt grotendeels de gevangenissen, die al overvol zijn, in. Tienduizenden ambtenaren verliezen hun baan en het beetje dat ze met werken verdienen, de lokale en provinciale overheid wordt onthoofd. Het land glijdt verder af in een totale bestuurlijke chaos. Duterte, het leger en de politie is wat overblijft. Duterte weet dat en heeft daarom vrijwel als eerste maatregel besloten hen veel beter te gaan betalen. Politieke dynastieen en de 40 families die hier alles regelen zullen er niet geruster op worden. Te verwachten valt daarom, dat meneer Duterte geen lang leven als president beschoren zal zijn als hij op deze weg voort gaat. De echte machthebbers hebben hun macht nog nooit zonder slag of stoot afgegeven. Sommige mensen vragen zich ook af of Duterte zijn vriendje Marcos gaat dwingen om de miljarden die nog steeds zoek zijn terug te geven aan het volk.

De sfeer in het land wordt er uiteindelijk niet beter op. Welke gevolgen dat zal hebben voor de economie moet afgewacht worden. Eerlijk gezegd twijfel ik bijna geen seconde aan de goede bedoelingen van de president. De vraag is of de volgorde goed is. Wie de trap schoon wil vegen doet er verstandig aan bovenaan te beginnen. Openbaar bestuur, rechterlijke macht, politietop en agenten, legertop, douane, belastingdienst en ga zo maar door. Eerst orde op zaken in het eigen overheidshuis stellen, zodat je recht van spreken hebt. Dan zorgen voor een goed investeringsklimaat, zodat er banen komen voor iedereen die wil werken, met beloningen die het mogelijk maken een gezin huisvesting en levensonderhoud te verschaffen. Kortom een rechtvaardigere verdeling van de economische groei bewerkstelligen. Wie dan nog crimineel wil zijn, doet dat omdat hij het leuk vindt of nooit genoeg kan krijgen en mag/moet hard aangepakt worden.

Nou, dat was het wel weer voor deze keer. Ik hoop dat jullie net als ik, genieten van de farce die de grootste natie op aarde (althans dat vinden ze zelf) aan het opvoeren is, dan valt er in ieder geval nog iets te lachen, al is het natuurlijk diep triest. Misschien heeft James Lovelock wel gelijk en is de mensheid tot nu toe gewoon nog te dom om tot echte oplossingen te komen.

Tot de volgende keer!

Understanding the Filipino political landscape

This May 9^th elections on all levels took take place in the Philippines. 54,36 million people casted their votes of which 24,73 are between 17 and 34 years of age. There were 5 candidates for the Presidency and 6 for the Vice-Presidency. Furthermore Senators, members of Congress, Governors, Vice-Governors, Mayors, Vice-Mayors and City Councilors will be elected.

The political landscape in the country is anything but clear and transparent. Political dynasties and personalities are by far more important than political parties, ideologies  or programs.

The candidate Presidents were Mar Roxas, Jejomar Binay, Rodrigo Duterte, Grace Poe and Miriam Defensor Santiago. Running for the Vice-Presidency are Leni Robredo, Gregory “Gringo” Honassan, Alan Cayetano, Francis “Chiz”  Escudero, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos jr. and Antonio Trillanes IV.

Jungles of posters and placards could be seen everywhere but nobody seemed to take note of them. It’s nearly impossible to identify your candidate in that jungle anyway. I would say there are too many elections on one day.  44,000 candidates run for a bit more than 18,000 positions.

Remarkable is that not only the President, but also the Vice-President is elected directly. Candidates operate in tandems. However there is a fair possibility that the President elect will get a Vice-President who wasn’t his/her running mate. This most likely is not the most effective of imaginable systems, because it includes the possibility of incorporating the opposition in the executive branch.

Yes, there are political parties. The tandem Roxas-Robredo (their color is yellow) belongs to the Liberal Party (LP), as does incumbent President Aquino. Binay-Honassan (their color is blue) belongs to the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA). Dutere-Cayetano are linked to the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) and their color is Red. Poe-Escudero (their color is white) belongs to the Partido Galing at Puso (PGP). Santiago-Marcos belongs to the People’s Reform Party (PRP) and Trillanes IV is an independent candidate for the Vice-Presidency.

However, political history of the Philippines shows that the ties between candidates and parties are not very strong. Institutionalization of political parties is still a path the Philippines have to take. As of now only about 1/5 of the seats in the House of Representatives (297 seats) are directly linked to political parties, whereas no party can have more than 3 seats. Furthermore the power of the higher house (the Senate, 24) seems to be far bigger than that of the lower house (the House of Representatives).

A shift from the Presidential model to a parliamentary model has been long discussed in the country, but never led to a result. Moreover a discussion about federalism has complicated this discussion.

Words like Liberal, Nationalist, Reform and Democratic don’t mean much related to political parties in the Philippines. Most of the time they are just flags that don’t cover the cargo. As said before the captain here is more important than the cargo.

The country has been ruled mainly by some 40 political dynasties. Most of them became rich through graft and corruption. The most well-known example is former dictator Ferdinand Marcos. His wife, the famous Imelda, is still a member of the House of Representatives and their son Ferdinand Jr. is a Senator, now running for Vice-President. Ousted president Estrada is now the mayor of Manila. Forgiveness seems to be a special virtue of Filipinos.

But at the same time a lot of voters are angry. They want to put an end to those dynasties and to corruption. But that is not easy. Extractive elites protect their positions, possessions and institutions. People want change, but the question is at what cost?

The results of the May 9 elections are that Rodrigo Duterte is going to be the next President. The people have chosen for a potential dictator, who said he will silence Congress if it blocks his plans and almost elected the heir of the Marcos Dynasty whose mother would have been glad that the money stolen from the country finally was safe now and that the former dictator most likely would have gotten an official state-funeral.  Some older people must have been crying, most probably silently. 

The collective memory of people is short. Abby Binay, whose family allegedly took millions if not billions in kickbacks and appear to be above the law, is going to be the next mayor of Makati and Duterte’s daughter will be the uncontested mayor of Davao. It stays all in the family. For me, as a foreigner, these are hard to understand choices. But I’m sure there will be a lot of scientists who are going to explain it to me. I think Filipinos vote with their heart, guts and emotion rather than with their brain. I don’t know for sure what is better, but I know what holds more risk.  It has been a vicious and divisive campaign that undoubtedly has caused wounds. Whether these wounds can be healed has to be shown. Senator Trillanes earlier announced that he would impeach Duterte and vice versa Duterte stated he would go after Trillanes. However Trillanes right after the elections stated he will not be in the way of the new government. Incumbent President Aquino said he would start organizing a new people revolution against the government of Duterte.

All in all these elections went fairly well, apart from some violent incidents and malfunctioning vote counting machines of SmartMatic. The results came in fast and Grace Poe conceded to Duterte already on the evening of May 9^th, which demonstrated trust in the handling by the Comelec of the elections. On May 10^th  Roxas, Cayetano, Escudero, Honassan, andTrillanes conceded showing the same trust.

A lot of emotions play around. My wife was crying viewing Roxas’ press-conference on May 10^th. People were accusing Leni Robredo of cheating when she was likely to win the Vice-Presidency. Duterte already announced a 1AM-curfew and a nationwide alcohol ban. Most likely within short notice smoking will only be allowed within your own walls.

The Dutch TV-station NOS labeled Duterte as a right wing populist. Apparently they compare him to their own Mr. Wilders and to Donald Trump. But in the Philippines it’s more fun. It’s different. It’s almost impossible to label politicians here.

Time will show what will really change as a consequence of these elections. Some exciting political months lay ahead of us.