The Theory of Radical Politics in the Philippines
Christopher Ryan
Maboloc, the main proponent of the theory of radical democracy in the Philippines, explains
that the Spanish colonial regime did not only exploit the Filipino people through unfair taxes and hard labor, but also by elevating the chosen elites called principales
to rule the masses (Maboloc 2019). “The elite among Filipinos who benefited from foreign rule are
the ones who have hastened the subjugation of the islands” (Maboloc 2019).
Maboloc writes that such “patronage system is not a modern-day phenomenon. It can be traced back to the
administration of Spanish authorities, which can be summed up as the politics
of exclusion” (Maboloc 2019). Such type of politics, echoing Hotchcroft and Rocamora (2003), characterizes the logic of Philippine democracy. What that means is that, politics
is monopolized by the few elites and the oligarchs of the country, while majority of the people are denied of the opportunity to actively participate in
the actual crafting of policies and in the decision-making processes that could
benefit the ordinary Filipino. It is for this reason that Philippine
democracy remains largely a patron client enterprise. Maboloc explains that the deeply entrenched unjust structures, the political alienation of Mindanao and the Bisaya, the hegemonic relationship between Manila and the South, and the lack of will of the Aquino presidency, all paved the way for the birth of radical democracy in the person of President Rodrigo Duterte.
Jeffry Ocay, a leading critical theorist in the country, in his treatise “Domination and Resistance in the Philippines: From the Pre-Hispanic to the Spanish and American period,” writes that Philippine history is characterized by the dialectic of domination and resistance. For centuries, the Filipino people have been struggling to free themselves from poverty and social injustices brought about by unjust political structures traced back to the Spanish and American colonial era. Accordingly, this all started when the Spanish government reorganized the pre-Hispanic Philippine society and introduced the encomienda system (Ocay 2010). “The encomienda system entailed the forcible resettlement of the small and scattered barangays into larger communities called pueblos” (Ocay, 2010). Consequently, the creation of the encomienda system is nothing but a feudal system of governance in which the exploitative nature of the Spanish colonial rule grew intense. The harsh practices perpetrated by the Spanish rulers in their respective pueblos awakened the “critical consciousness of the Filipino people,” Ocay says. The awakening of the critical consciousness of the Filipino people has led to the long history of resistance against elite rule in the country’s political life.
Benjiemen Labastin in
his work “Civility in the Midst of Dutertismo”, examined the Duterte phenomenon
and provided a plausible comparative analysis of Maboloc’s radical
interpretation of Duterte’s rise to power and Randy David’s critical stance on
Duterte’s presidency. Labastin explains that following from these two prominent
scholars, we can see that there are two visions of democracy in the
Philippines. One sees Duterte as an authoritarian leader that insists on reestablishing the liberal democratic processes as the core
foundation of formal democracy. And the other views Duterte as a strong leader who bears the leadership role of saving the Filipino people from abject poverty
and injustices brought about by the deeply rooted unjust political structures
in Philippine society. Such reading of “Dutertismo” sees Duterte’s presidency
as an alternative approach that departs from the logic of liberal democratic
processes in order to deepen and substantiate democracy (Labastin,2020).
The former’s presupposition is grounded in David’s parallelism of Duterte and
Marcos’ rise to power. Accordingly, Duterte, like Marcos, has taken advantage
of the Filipino people’s dissatisfaction with the state of Philippine democracy and has presented
himself as a strong leader who knows exactly what needs to be done in order to
solve the pressing socio-political and economic problems the country is facing.
Duterte built his political agenda on the people’s weariness and abhorrence of the current political structure, which consequently won for him the trust of
the majority of voters in the May 2016 presidential election. Labastin (2020) thinks that “Duterte repeatedly
expressed to circumvent the democratic processes and unshackle the country from
the various social forces and conditions that hinder it in attaining an
orderly, free, develop, and egalitarian society."
But, instead of seeing Duterte’s brand of politics as problematic due to its
disruptive nature, Maboloc (2018) argues that with the kind of political reality we
are into, disruption is
necessary in order to challenge the status quo. For
Maboloc, the Aquino administration's failure to salvage the ordinary
Filipino from dire poverty, criminality, corruption, and drugs in the past intensified the “feeling of
disillusionment” of the masses. Thus, pavng the way for the rise of Duterte
into power. Maboloc (2018) explains that “Filipinos trust the president because they
have been fed up by a rotten system that only caters to the elite but has
deprived the ordinary citizen the opportunity to enjoy one’s entitlements and
socio-economic rights.” In fact, the rise of Duterte into
power is nothing accidental. Rather, it is the inevitable effect of a people’s
reawakening and disillusionment of the limitations and dangers of placing their
trust in a system whose structure is designed to serve the selfish interests of
the few who rule while disregarding the quest for equitable progress that everyone must enjoy. Maboloc reiterates that Duterte’s rise to
power posits a history of struggle and oppression that can be traced back to
the Spanish colonial period, following Ocay lead. He further argues that “Duterte inherited a
position that was hungry for someone with the bravery to determine the destiny
of a people weakened by regional divide, hopelessness, and confusion" (Maboloc 2018). For this reason, Duterte is perceived to be the leader who can realize the hopes of the suffering masses and make the change so necessary in
order to uproot the deeply rooted system that is exacerbating the sufferings of the Filipino people.
Moreover, in his seminal work
“President Rodrigo Duterte and the Birth of Radical Democracy in the
Philippines,” Maboloc posits the necessity of Duterte’s persona in the history
of Philippine democracy. Aside from portraying Duterte as the “anti-thesis” of
the conventional politicians and the oligarchs (Maboloc 2019),
Maboloc emphatically asserts the need for radical reform in the country’s
political structures. He argues that the prevailing structural injustices, the
exclusion of the ordinary people to actively participate in the society’s
decision-making processes, the denial of the masses’ basic entitlements, the
radical inequality among the poor and the elites in the country, and the proliferation
of a neo-colonial regime and semi-feudal economic order, all necessitate a
radical reconfiguration that must be initiated by a strong leader who is afraid
of nothing (Maboloc 2019). These radical reforms, he believes, cannot
be realized by means of liberal reformism. The ruling
elites have continuously failed the masses and have actively participated in
the impoverishment of the Filipino people. A linear approach to change that
begins from the top is bound to fail, for the reason that the
rulers who benefited so much in the unjust socio-economic and political
structures embedded in Philippine democracy are unwilling to reform these structures. Maboloc writes that “any political reform that starts from the top
will be meaningless given that most of those in positions of power are deeply
entrenched in their old bad habits. For this reason, the radical ways of
leading a country becomes desirable” (Maboloc 2019).
Therefore, it can be said that Duterte is an inevitable phenomenon in the history of Philippine democracy. The many sufferings the ordinary Filipino people are experiencing in the hands of elite politicians who perpetuate a rotten political system has lead to the awakening of the Filipino people’s mind about the evils and the atrocities of an elitist political system. Indeed, Dutertismo, which is conceived as an alternative approach to elite democracy and characterized by radical type of leadership, is a historical given whose value rests not on any contingent reason the way his critics picture, but on the presupposition that the Duterte phenomenon is an inevitable result of the historical being of the country’s brand of democracy. Maboloc, thus, writes: “The rise of Duterte into power is a consequence of the failures of elite democracy that has for a very long time enjoyed the benefits of progress but has alienated the masses” (Maboloc, 2019).
- Excerpts from my article, "Ozamiz Politics and the Covid-19 Pandemic." (IGI Global, 2021)
