[Second Opinion] The delusion of quick fixes

by Gideon Lasco
Philippine Daily Inquirer

By 1980, it is predicted that Manila may have expanded so much that it may include Infanta, Quezon province. This will be a city, therefore, two sides of which are harbors. One on the Pacific Ocean and one on Manila Bay or the China Sea side.” We will never be able to tell if Ferdinand Marcos, who delivered those words in his 1976 State of the Nation Address, was genuinely convinced that his New Society would usher in a transformation of Asimovian proportions.

Regardless, he is not alone in imagining — or claiming — that dramatic changes take place in our country in a short period of time. “Three [MRTs] will be completed in 2004, one in 2005, and another one in 2006,” declared Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in her own Sona in 2001. “Before I step down, all the land covered by CARP will have been distributed,” Noynoy Aquino pledged on the same occasion in 2012. Two years later, he would trumpet the Laguna Lakeshore Expressway Dike, assuring that bidding would take place very soon amid hearty applause.

Perhaps one can fault our former presidents for making empty promises. But one can also ask why such promises were seen as plausible at that time. And why the same plausibility is accorded the current president’s pronouncements: Kill me if I don’t resolve crimes in 6 months. “Just give me a little extension of maybe another six months,” he would say later, only to eventually concede that the promise was a ‘miscalculation’ and that his term is not enough.

The political expediency of quick fixes taps into people’s impatience in a broken system that they feel has not worked for them. They also draw from our people’s penchant for blind faith — i.e., an uncritical acceptance of what our politicians say. We ask presidential candidates what they plan to do for our country, without interrogating how exactly they plan to do it.

The problem with most quick fixes, however, is that they break the continuity that’s necessary for most programs to succeed. In DOT, for instance, the changing of slogans — from “Wow Philippines” to “It’s More Fun in the Philippines” to “Experience Philippines” — is undertaken by every new administration, as if it would miraculously allow us to finally beat the tourist arrivals of Thailand and Malaysia (both of whom, by the way, have maintained their respective slogans for the past decade).

Another is they lead to desperate and drastic measures that are ultimately detrimental to our nation. Instead of building a comprehensive approach to our drug problem, the government embarks on a ‘war on drugs’ without addressing why people use drugs in the first place. Death, whether in the form of suspected drug users getting shot or criminals getting executed, is valorized, despite the overwhelming historical and scientific evidence that it is not just inhumane, but ineffective.

And then there’s martial law, which is being touted today as a magical solution for Mindanao’s problems — even though, as my colleague Oscar Franklin Tan pointed out, it does not actually add to the already awesome powers of the presidency. Completely untethered from any sense of history, some even wish for martial law to be declared over the entire country, thinking  that it would return us into an imagined utopia. Alas, many of our leaders tolerate these untruths, betraying a complicity that is just as expedient for them as the myths they enable.

“Federalism,” too, is trumpeted as a panacea for our republic’s maladies, as if it would overhaul our broken political system and rid us of the pernicious culture of patronage. While federalism is a legitimate long-term aspiration for the country, the way it is presented by today’s political actors, as yet another silver bullet, misses the mark, even as it once again hits people’s longing for change.

Quick fixes can take the form not just of programs or platforms, but individuals, as when they too are touted, and uncritically accepted, as the answer to our problems. And here is where the gravest danger lies. Over 40 years after a Philippine president presented himself as our nation’s savior, the last thing we need is another fake messiah.

Originally published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer: http://opinion.inquirer.net/105701/delusion-quick-fixes

[Second Opinion] The many voices of Martial Law

by Gideon Lasco
Philippine Daily Inquirer

We cannot pretend otherwise: The nation is sharply divided on the issue of martial law, which President Duterte declared over the whole of Mindanao.

Those who support martial law see it as a logical and commensurate response to a serious threat about which President Duterte has long been warning. In this narrative, enemies of the state have joined forces—drug lords, terrorists, and even the political opposition, and they must be stopped lest they rend our nation asunder. “He knows what he’s doing,” they say of Mr. Duterte. “He’s from Mindanao; why will he harm his own people?”

Those who oppose martial law, on the other hand, see it as a disproportionate response; many fear that it is the next step in the President’s creeping authoritarianism. They cite the precedent of Marcos’ martial law—openly admired by Mr. Duterte even as it was marked by human rights violations. They worry that while the 1987 Constitution has checks and balances against abuses, the institutions tasked to perform them have become inutile and largely subservient.

This debate has taken on an even more divisive turn as some are framing it as a matter between the people of Mindanao and those not from there. “Isn’t it ironic? The people who complain are from Luzon, but martial law is here in Mindanao,” a friend from Davao said, echoing a common refrain in social media. He has a point, but can he speak on behalf of the whole of Mindanao, with all its many voices?

To make sense of people’s attitudes toward martial law, we need to understand where they are coming from. Some people cite the nondeclaration of martial law in Zamboanga City during the 2013 siege as an argument against it, but, as local broadcaster Ronnie Lledo tells me, many in their city actually feel that martial law should have been declared, given what they went through.

For many lumad all over Mindanao, perhaps martial law will be seen as “nothing new,” given the longstanding militarization of their homelands. We speak of “Muslims in Mindanao” as if they were one group, but they, too, have diverse sentiments: Many support martial law, but are gravely concerned about collateral damage. Others are bitterly opposed to it, citing the Moro experience during the Marcos regime.

As for the people of Marawi City, martial law is but part of the ongoing crisis. “This is the saddest Ramadan for us,” they cry, as they narrate stories of survival, escape, hunger, fear and suffering, alongside appeals for humanitarian aid. It is a sobering thought that many Filipinos remain in the crossfire, and that the death toll, civilian and military, continues to rise.

All these are legitimate voices, but theirs are not the only ones. As the death of Senior Insp. Freddie Manuel Solar—who hails from Baguio City—painfully reminds us, the soldiers and police officers in the frontline come from all over the country. Surely their families also have the right to be concerned on whether the fight we’re fighting is just and warranted.

And so does the rest of the nation, including the youth. Omid Siahmard, a UP Manila student from North Cotabato, urged people to stop generalizing their experiences of “feeling safe”—and called for an end to the air strikes, citing the death of a friend’s uncle. Shall we dismiss voices like his? Must we draw lines of legitimacy on the basis of age, region, institution, or religion?

And should we ignore the past? If Digong can invoke the memory of Bud Dajo, should we not invoke the memories of Malisbong? Or, for that matter, Pata Island and Manili?

Personally, I am worried about where this situation might take us: The President’s recent pronouncements (and jokes) are not very reassuring, and neither is humanity’s track record in handling unconstrained power.

But I worry, too, about the divisiveness that martial law is exacerbating and bringing about—a divisiveness that plays into the terrorists’ goal of undoing our cherished institutions and values. As the emerging narratives from Marawi should remind us, there are many voices out there, and the least we can do is listen, especially to those who are affected the most by this deepening crisis.

This essay was originally published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on June 1, 2017: http://opinion.inquirer.net/104447/many-voices-martial-law

[Second Opinion] Make Duterte great again

by Gideon Lasco
Philippine Daily Inquirer

Contrary to the creative imagination of fake news websites, Nasa never said Rodrigo Duterte is “the best president in the solar system.” I wasn’t informed of any survey undertaken to reach that conclusion, and, I suspect, neither were the Martians.

But who wouldn’t wish for a Philippine president to gain such a distinction? Even when the competition has weakened in the age of Donald Trump, it will still be a great honor that not even the medal-loving Ferdinand Marcos ever received.

Some, of course, would say that President Duterte is the great leader we’ve been waiting for, while others would argue, with as much passion, that he was never great to begin with. (The idea of “making Duterte great again” was just a provocation that was never intended to satisfy partisans of either side.)

Those of the first persuasion point to Davao City as living proof of Digong’s greatness: a city that he lifted from chaos and poverty into orderliness and prosperity. But others beg to differ, citing the testimonies of Edgar Matobato, Arturo Lascañas, and, long before them, the jeremiads of Fr. Amado Picardal.

Personally, I think the fact that Mr. Duterte was able to win a broad coalition of support in the presidential election—across social classes, regions, and political affiliations—is an undeniably great accomplishment. He has gained such a devoted following that he joked once that he can already establish an “Iglesia ni Duterte.”

He was so popular at the dawn of his administration that he could have moved us away from partisan politics, simply by fulfilling his Trudeauesque vow of appointing a diverse Cabinet. Unfortunately, despite inspired choices like Judy Taguiwalo and the unfairly caricatured Gina Lopez, he has not been immune to the favoritism that undermined previous administrations, as evidenced, most recently, by his brazen appointment of Mocha Uson as assistant secretary at the Presidential Communications Operations office.

He could have, moreover, followed up his call for unity by reaching out to his political opponents, including Vice President Leni Robredo who went out of her way to find common ground despite being unjustly vilified. Instead, he resurrected the Marcos specter by allowing the burial of the dictator’s remains in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

He could have embarked on a bold and inspiring rhetoric of national renewal and solidarity. Instead, his speech has been marked by invectives worthy of Hugo Chavez—and an obsession with the “war on drugs,” informed by the misguided idea that drug users are beyond redemption—and the dangerous notion that the police must be defended regardless of their actions.

And for all the promise it evokes, his “independent foreign policy” has been characterized by kowtowing to China: a disappointing act, coming from our commander in chief. While his outreach to neighboring countries and his special attention to overseas Filipino workers are commendable, surely he can do better on matters of national dignity and sovereignty.

As Mr. Duterte’s first year in office draws to a close, he must channel his political capital to the many other issues our country faces today; he must do so in an inclusive, not divisive, way. Drugs, of course, remain a serious problem, but the problem should be addressed comprehensively and humanely. Importantly, it should not be used as a pretext for impunity or authoritarianism.

Now it cannot be denied that this administration has some great ideas. I, for one, am looking forward to badly needed infrastructure projects and tax reforms. I am still hopeful that peace with the communist and Moro rebels will come to fruition. If Mr. Duterte is what it takes to address Mindanao’s historic grievances and make its people feel part of the nation, surely that has to count for something. But all these—and indeed his entire legacy—can be eclipsed by his broken promises and the deadly war on drugs.

So how do we move forward? The President’s “climate change of heart” leaves the door open for future turnarounds, but much will depend on his supporters and close allies. Who among them will have the courage to acknowledge his mistakes—and tell him to change course?

Greatness has been waiting, but alas, Digong is riding a jetski toward the opposite direction.

Originally published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on May 11, 2017: http://opinion.inquirer.net/103895/make-duterte-great

[Second Opinion] The politics of compromise

by Gideon Lasco
Philippine Daily Inquirer

It was a foregone conclusion that the rubber-stamp Congress would pass the death penalty bill despite its many flaws. Even so, it was still interesting to look at how individual members voted.
Of course, few expected the political dynasts and the trapos to go against Pantaleon Alvarez’s marching orders; you have to be an Arroyo or a Marcos to pull off a dissenting vote and maintain good ties with the Speaker and the President. But for the supposed mavericks in the House, there was an expectation that they would at least put up a brave resistance.

It was disappointing then that Geraldine Roman—“the first transgender woman in Congress”—voted for the death penalty bill. The expectation, after all, did not just come from the idea that her open-mindedness in gender issues would translate to open-mindedness in other matters, but also from her previous opposition to the death penalty: Just last year she was quoted as saying that “people who make mistakes in society” deserve a second chance.

Roman explained her vote by saying that her own convictions notwithstanding, 85 percent of her constituents wanted the death penalty, and that as their “representative,” she was duty-bound to follow them. “I am part of the world of politics, and politics is compromise,” she told law students in Ateneo. “As much as I would want to follow my conscience to vote against the death penalty, I have the interests of the constituents, of my constituents in Bataan, in mind.”

What did she mean when she said that “politics is compromise”?

Roman herself provided a clue in her talk: “What about my other advocacies? Should I have held on to a sinking ship and ran along with me and my constituents and my advocacies? Try and understand my situation.”

Perhaps her justification is merely a sophisticated way of admitting that she jumped ship as an act of political self-preservation. But at the same time, I also see that her attitude is shared by many of our country’s leaders, which is why we must try to focus on where this attitude is coming from—and leave her alone for the time being.

Let’s start off with a thought experiment. Say you’re a passionate supporter of a certain cause, like the construction of dedicated walkways and bike lanes in our major cities. Having no other channel to raise your ideas, you post about them on Facebook. To your pleasant surprise, it goes viral! Then, amazingly, a government official invites you to Malacañang so you can present your ideas to the president himself!

“Very good! I will sign an executive order right away,” the president says, much to your elation. Finally, your vision of walkable and bikeable cities is within reach! But he adds a caveat: “Of course, I expect you to stop criticizing the drug war.”

Now you happen to be a critic of the extrajudicial killings—but you also feel that you’re in a unique opportunity to advance your cause. What would you do? The battle here, as is often the case, is not between good and evil, but between two forms of good. For legislators and even Cabinet officials, the choice is between focusing on their initiatives at the cost of leaving the presidency alone in other matters—or criticizing the president at the expense of losing the positions with which they can pursue their initiatives. Faced with the same dilemma, what would you choose?

Most of our leaders today are choosing compromise.

To some extent, this form of pragmatism makes sense in a system where the president is all too powerful: If he were a smoker, he may never order a nationwide smoking ban, but maybe we can get him to sign a law imposing a “sin tax” on tobacco. If he hates shabu with a vengeance, he may never adopt a harm reduction approach to drugs, but maybe he can embrace the same approach to reproductive health: That should, the thinking goes, be good enough for now.

But if helping to legitimize an unjust measure—or indeed, an unjust regime—either by open support or convenient silence, is the price for your initiatives to be supported, is it worth paying? I hope our leaders realize that there’s a very thin line between complicity and compromise.

Originally published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on March 23, 2017: http://opinion.inquirer.net/102670/the-politics-of-compromise

Duterte as folk hero

Photo from Inquirer.net

by Gideon Lasco

Whether or not Duterte actually wins in the coming presidential elections, he has already scored a victory by becoming a folk hero for many Filipinos: those who are disenchanted with our democratic institutions, those in Visayas and Mindanao who feel underrepresented by an “Imperial Manila”, those who are fed up with usual names in politics, and those who are searching for authenticity in our leaders: an authenticity they can relate to.

A folk hero is, as Cambridge Dictionary puts it, “someone who is ​popular with and ​respected by ​ordinary ​people”. Certainly, the inspired following of Duterte all over the Philippines qualifies him by this measure. Even before his “reluctant” candidacy, his name was been uttered by many a taxi driver, as one of them once told me: “If only Duterte were president, surely he can solve the traffic in EDSA!”

Folk heroes, furthermore, are, “ambiguous figures”. Australian folklorist Graham Seal points out that “Many folk heroes walk a thin and fuzzy line between the admirable and the rephrensible. This line is seen is seen most clearly…where the practicalities of defying the law are continually balanced by the injustices - real or otherwise - inflicted by those who control the law.” Like Robin Hood breaking the law to serve the poor in the time of King John’s tyrannical abuses, Duterte’s seeming willingness (by his own words) to resort to extrajudicial measures has alarmed many, but has, in equal measure, convinced others of his heroic qualities.

Sociologists point out that folk heroes embody cultural values - so much so that many scholars actually study folk heroes as a way of understanding the cultures where these heroes belonged. In looking at Duterte as folk hero, then, we can make sense not only of the appeal of his candidacy, but of values many Filipinos hold dear.

Part of Duterte’s appeal lies in his promise of doing things differently in government. Held in the context of the still-unresolved Maguindanao massacre and Mamasapano “misencounter”, his willingness to resort to extraordinary measures serves as a sign of his potential to break the status quo in many other areas. This anti-establishment posture resonates with many who believe that the present system needs changing: those who feel that the problem is Filipinos’ lack of disipline, those who lament the continuous degradation of our natural resources, those who have not felt “inclusive growth” despite claims of an improved economy.

Another part of Duterte’s appeal is in the way he represents Mindanao, Visayas, and the rest of the Philippines outside of Manila. Whether warranted or not, many feel left out, and think that someone from Davao would be more understanding about the concerns of Cebu, than someone from Luzon. Boosting this case is Duterte's espousal of federalism - something that many regions have long been clamoring for.

Duterte’s perceived freshness in national politics is also appealing. While Poe, Binay, Santiago, and Roxas are surnames that have held - or ran for - national positions for decades, this is the first time a Duterte will appear in a national ticket. While this does not mean that he is no political dynast (his daughter Inday was mayor of Davao; his father Vicente was governor of the then-undivided Davao province), at least in the national level he is perceived as new.

Finally, Duterte’s appeal lies in the way people can relate to him. Unlike the mansions (alleged or real) of his rivals, he has a modest house in Davao with a kulambo in tow. While pundits cry foul over his not-so-subtle allusions to womanizing, many actually see his womanizing as a sign of strength and authenticity (at least, the thinking goes, he is honest about it, unlike others who are hypocritical). While pundits cry foul over his use of swear words (something that he has disavowed), it is a language of the street that nether Mar Roxas, with his Ateneo and Wharton education - nor Miriam with her eloquence - can emulate. It is the language that makes people say that “he is one of us”.

***

Folk heroes, however, are the stuff of legend, not of reality, and Duterte is already taking on a legendary character thanks to his ardent followers, who have given him apocryphal endorsements coming from Stephen Curry, AlDub, and even the Pope (which the CBCP had to refute). It is to Duterte’s credit that he can inspire such tales, but what they construct is an image of an infallible leader that is unhelpful to Duterte himself as he needs to be pushed to become a better candidate - not worshipped for what he already is. Moreover, in the process of making someone a folk hero, people make villains of out his enemies, at times with outright lies (i.e. the fictional nurse who bashes Roxas’ Yolanda response). This is not helpful to our political process.

If he loses the elections, Duterte will still live on as a folk hero, and a potent reminder of people’s dissatisfaction about our democratic processes, of the need to pay attention to the entire country, and of people’s growing mistrust of old names in positions of power. He will inspire others to emerge and take up his double-edged sword of no-nonsense leadership.

If he wins, he can capitalize on his popular support in pushing for badly-needed reforms in government. However, with the very high expectations he has set (i.e. “Kill me if I don’t resolve crimes in 6 months”) in the performance of this folk heroism, will he be able to deliver on his promises?

Only the elections will tell if enough people are willing to give him a chance.

Manila
April 2016

GIDEON LASCO ON THE 2016 ELECTIONS
Duterte as folk hero (gideonlasco.com)
Tough love for Duterte (Philippine Daily Inquirer)
Social media advice for Mar Roxas (Philippine Daily Inquirer)
The presidency of the forests (Philippine Daily Inquirer)
The politics of physical appearance (Philippine Daily Inquirer)

Social media and the 2016 elections

by Gideon Lasco

How exactly will social media shape the upcoming elections?

It was US president Barack Obama who demonstrated the usefulness of social media in 2008, when his campaign used Facebook to penetrate young people’s social networks and encourage them to vote. Two years later when Noynoy Aquino ran for president, social media was not as big in the Philippines: in mid-2010, there were only 10 million Facebook users in the country, compared to 40 million today.

The 2013 elections did attract the attention of netizens - remember the Nancy Binay memes - but it was a mid-term election, sans the fanfare that usually accompanies the vote to determine the highest office in the land. With the presidency at stake, 2016 is promising to become the most “trending" of Philippine elections. Here are some ways social media is making its mark:

A more participative platform
Social media is a platform for candidates and voters alike to engage in the political process in a more direct way. Through their fan pages, candidates can directly share their thoughts and photos without being filtered by traditional media. As Mar Roxas learned in his “happy anniversary” faux pas (a topic I addressed in “Social media advice for Mar Roxas”; PDI 09/15/2015), social media engagement has its pitfalls - but it can also be a rewarding way to connect with voters, especially the youth.

Voters, for their part, through their posts, comments, and annotated “shares”, can influence their social networks - a hypothesis that has received support from a 2012 study published in Nature, which demonstrated that what Facebook users see in their “news feeds” can affect their voting patterns. While others have argued that it has only amplified partisanship (i.e. we only read and share the articles we agree with), it has undeniably made the public more involved and aware of what’s happening.

Aside from expressing ideas, the direct access to (and by) the public can be a tool for change - as showed by the anti-pork “Million People March” in 2013, largely organised through social media. Though the “million people” did not materialise, it nonetheless offered a glimpse of what social media can enable.

(Mis)information wars
Websites and Facebook pages can easily be set up, and made to look like respectable news outlets, while subtly espousing an political agenda. Of course, already-established websites and blogs are not immune from the influence of politics and can also contribute to misinformation.

Sometimes, the truth will be sacrificed for the sake of virality. Articles will go for the shareable, the scandalous, the dramatic. They will follow the format of articles guaranteed to attraction your attention (i.e. “Ten reasons not to vote for Binay” or “The shocking truth about Grace Poe”).

But social media can also offer a venue for people to fact check the information they’re overloaded with. In the US, websites like FactCheck.Org are fulfilling this role, and their articles are widely shared in traditional and social media.

Cyber-‘hakot’ and online vote buying
As of this writing, Binay has 230,000 Twitter followers, Roxas has 505,000; Grace Poe has 45,200. In an age when influence is measured by the number of followers you have on social media, expect this numbers game to be closely watched - and contested. Through paid-for “sponsored posts” in Facebook and Twitter - and with the help of online entrepreneurs who “sell” likes and followers - candidates can appear more influential, more famous, and yes, more vote-worthy (everybody loves a winner).

It is not just “likes” and “follows”; even comments can be manufactured or “planted”. One study showed that 1/3 of all customer reviews and comments online are fake, and it won’t be surprising if the same can be said of political comments.

These, of course, are old political tricks, the logical extensions of the “hakot” crowds and actual vote buying employed in traditional politics. But they also raise issues of legality and transparency:  can the COMELEC keep track of campaign expenditures online, and monitor cyberspace for violations?

Will Facebook ‘likes’ translate to votes?
Ultimately, it will be the actual votes, not Facebook ‘likes’ - or Twitter ‘favorites’ - that will matter (that is, of course, assuming that vote buying isn’t a factor). Though it is projected that 60% of Filipinos will have access to the Internet by 2016, it will not be representative of the population: the poor and those living in rural areas will be underrepresented. Thus social media sentiment - or online surveys, for that matter - cannot be taken to be the voice of the nation.

But social media itself can increase voter turnout  by turning the elections into a social, shareable, fashionable activity - a phenomenon that some scholars call “digital peer pressure”. In the same 2012 study I cited above, another key finding was that people were more likely to vote if they saw a message showing their Facebook friends had voted.

How else will social media affect the elections? Will an ingenious campaign jingle, “break the Internet”? Will a YouTube video or a tell-all blog post, revealing a hitherto unseen side of a candidate, go viral days before the elections and affect his or her chances? Because of its relative novelty - and the ever-changing world of Philippine politics - it is unwise to make further predictions.

All we can say at this point is that social media will definitely be a key battleground where the elections will be fought.