A NUMBER of analysts and observers have described Duterte's administration as populist. The word might, for many, connote a democratic spirit. Democracy, after all, has been misunderstood as a governance of and by popularity.
Political scientists would tell us that that populism is associated with anti-intellectualism and the denial of technocratic knowledge. Populist followers look up to their leader as the symbol of local wisdom. These people are those who are either tired of intellectual discussions or simply abhor it because of its complexity. The kind of wisdom that fuels populism does not operate within the framework of procedural or institutional thinking. Supporters of a populist leader may be loyal but blind. They highly trust their leader because they think he is the one who can truly understand their way of thinking. They follow what they feel and believe to be the corporate personification of all their desires and values.
A populist leader, therefore, is not a symbol of democracy but its anti-thesis. This is where we need to review our concept of democracy. True democracy is driven by a spirit of the people. However, it is a people that is capable of thinking – of making deliberations. The democratic process works within institutions and cannot be separated from institutions. An indicator of democracy, in fact, is the strength of the institutions to continually operate as formal structures or systems.
Analyzing Duterte in this light would give a concerned citizen chills of fear and worry. Precisely, we are seeing before our very eyes a leader who himself does not trust the very democratic institutions. He has not, technically and literally, destroyed the institutions but he has sent a strong message to his avid supporters that the foundations of our society cannot be trusted. Supporters of Digong would tell you that they trust an institution only and insofar as it is in one way or another connected to Digong. Thus a court can be trusted only to the extent that it is a court that agrees with the current administration’s views. Even Churches cannot be trusted because they are hypocritical. Bishops for Dutertards are moral if and only if they are as honest and blunt as Duterte.
This kind of thinking is not reasonable. It does not follow any logic. Basically, the logic of social institutions does not begin with persons but with the system. We do not make judgments and decisions based on what personalities say. Government officials are supposed to make the system work. If the system is flawed they have to improve the system, not damage or question it.
So what fuels populism? What gave rise to populist leaders? And why are supporters of a populist leader so blind that they would refuse to see things objectively? The root, I guess, cannot be found in the mind of the followers but in their sentiments. Populism is the sum total of a people’s mixed sentiments of frustration, anger, failure, and distrust. The populist leader is the very projection of a frustrated people’s unfulfilled wishes and desires. These supporters are followers who have been crying for justice and order.
There is a big “BUT” however. But, and unfortunately some of them simply want to mend society’s ways and processes via the quickest route. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In the case of our present situation, we are getting close to hell first because of our good intentions, and secondly because we were rushing to it. Some of our fellow citizens cannot embrace the fact that if things should change it must go through a process.
It is quite sad to realize, as one can glean from social media that many Filipinos are so passionate but their passions are misplaced. The followers of a populist leader are well-meaning in their intentions. Unfortunately, for a system to succeed good intentions are not enough.