Between political rhetoric and evidence based policy
On May 9th Rodrigo Duterte was elected to be the 16th
President of the Philippines. He took office on the 30th 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 11th 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 23rd PNP-chief Ronald dela Rosa stated that since
July 1st (54 days of Duterte Government) 1,916 people were killed,
756 in police operations and 1160 in extra judicial killings. On September 1st
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 2nd 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.
