Appropriating Duterte in the Radical Democratic Theory
By Leo Lusanez
To be fair, even those in the deliberative democracy sphere have had a hard time truly placing President Rodrigo Duterte on certain political lenses. Despite the man's statements, he can't reasonably be considered leftist as he has consistently acted against the left's interests. But on the other hand, you can't entirely place him on the right since his policies tend to be governed by pragmatism rather than ideology, and it just so happens that the context during his term favored a capitalist (some would say neoliberal approach). This is why many of you have had to give him all sorts of labels to identify him as - radical democrat, penal populist, and so many others. His actions have made him difficult to appraise, yet intuitively, we understand that they're not the behavior of some old, demented politician. There is sense, but it's blurred by a kind of haze only Duterte is capable of producing.
In an academic situation like this, attempting to divorce the theory (Mouffe's theory, in this case) from the context (PH politics) is hopelessly unproductive, because it's something ANYONE can do. And just as readily, I can question to what extent must a context deviate from a theory before it can be called a misappropriation. This is what the discussion surrounding your work is devolving into, and I don't like it for the next reason. Whether we like it or not, Duterte ended up being elected through democratic means, with the use of democratic institutions. This is another point that your critics have been so keen to miss. Yes, I say keen - because in my opinion, the "agonistic" application of Mouffe's philosophy is actually most evident DURING his rise to power.
When he was elected, barely anyone questioned the legitimacy of his ascent beyond the boilerplate Facebook whining we've become accustomed to (a whining which I admittedly took part in btw HAHAHA). Result-wise, it's exactly what you would get from most Western-style elections too - slim majority. The only difference was that he got a supermajority in Congress, although since Filipinos hardly vote along party lines, one can arguably chalk it up to coincidence. In terms of the preservation of institutions, it was exactly what you would expect in a radical democratic framework. Agonistic.
The fact that they insist on purism as a way of refuting your work shows how ultimately inflexible their thinking is regarding Duterte as a politician. He cannot exist in politics as being a justification for anything - he is a wrong that deserves to be corrected. Of course, the problem with this mindset is that it is a red herring - as you have pointed out, the larger problem of cultural, economic, and moral injustice is far more pressing than any vainglorious attempt at discrediting an obviously valid application of a philosophical thought upon a certain context.
