I HAVE been asked to reconsider some of my points in a previous article on “The War on Drugs.” Basis? Too sweeping, biased, etc...
Let me make it clear that when I said that I never believed that the War on Drugs would be successful, it simply referred to what the president himself promised: “to end the problem of illegal drugs in six months.” Is there anything wrong or inaccurate with what I said? The president’s original promise in fact was “three to six months.” Can you imagine?
The problem with some of the president’s diehard supporters is their inability to admit that there’s something problematic with the promise in the very first place. When cornered, they would resort to all forms of exegetical justifications. Among others, they would say that the promise was not literal but figurative. Since day one, this administration’s pronouncements have been as mystery-laden as Sacred Scripture. Precisely, people are confused as to which of the president’s words should be taken literally, metaphorically, or jokingly.
Am I saying all of these because I am bitter that Mar Roxas did not win? Let me make it very clear: neither do I believe that Mar Roxas would also succeed in wiping out the drug menace. Fortunately, he did not make the same promise as Duterte. As said, the problem is not only local in scope. Even if it was Grace Poe who won, still she would be as unbelievable as Duterte should she have claimed to also end the problem of illegal drugs in six months. Precisely, anyone who is dead serious in trying to address the problem of illegal drugs would do so with less propaganda.
What then is my issue with the president’s “War on Drugs?” If I may be allowed to not directly proceed to my point, allow me to first give a remark. It is not an issue for debate that the drug menace is a problem. Certainly, no person who is in his right mind would defend and justify drug trade. More so it is not an issue that it is the job or the duty of the police to run after all those involved in illegal drugs. There is in fact a “presumption of regularity” that regardless of the president sitting in power, the PNP and whatever government agency should do all its best to combat the proliferation of illegal drugs.
And so the issue: why the promise, and why create a propaganda that would resound a grand scale narrative of the problem? Why make the “War on Drugs” the central focus of all issues? Why isolate it from the other problems that are contributory to it?
Am I not, as a citizen of this country, supposed to support the president? Of course, I wish this president all the best. Among others, the current administration was, at first, on track when it signaled a pro-labor stance. There “was” also a sign of hope when it entertained the peace-talks with the Left. Unfortunately, the president, again, digressed from his promises.
I would not also support for calls that seek to topple down this administration. But my trust and belief in the president would depend on his credibility, truthfulness, and seriousness. Who would like to believe in a president who says one thing today, and another thing tomorrow? To insist that one should trust in all that the president says even if he himself is not sure with what he is saying – is the same as insisting that a clown is as believable as the pope in matters of faith and morals.