DAVAO City became Exhibit A in the 2016 elections campaign. The city, its citizens, all the goings-on and what went before in the locality became proof, not only of those who campaigned for the leader of the city who ran for president, but also even those who campaigned against him. Using the practices and outcomes of a locality as materials for election campaigning is not new; for instance, another candidate was known for the "ganito kami sa Makati" tagline before.
But what made the Davao-themed campaign different was the multitude of citizen voices who ran it. Here were Davaoeños, instead of a politician, who said "ganito kami sa Davao" in many ways using the internet: they wrote about firsthand experiences, and made and posted videos and memes.
Now that the election case has been effectively made, and a Mindanawon will be the 16th president of the Philippines, what will happen to Exhibit A?
Unlike other case conclusions where exhibits get relegated to storage, I think Davao City, its people, and experiences in matters of economy, politics, governance, order and culture should continue to be Exhibit A--but this time, for another case.
It is a case for moving away from the mindset that privileges Metro Manila as the seat of power and leadership, which has only marginalized people and institutions outside of that region. It is a case for shifting focus and relationships, and recognizing that there are many other centers in the country, and thus Metro Manila’s economic and political elites do not have exclusive franchise to setting the direction and pace of the archipelago.
When the canvassing clearly showed plurality support for Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, favor-seekers and influence-peddlers made a beeline for Davao City to meet with the incoming president. Thus the quip that there is a National Job Fair going on in Davao City, and that it had become the new Metro Manila.
But Davao City is not the new Metro Manila, because there is no need to replicate that metropolis and its attendant problems. Instead, the Philippines of the coming days can have multiple dispersed centers. With additional changes to our social systems, power in these centers need not be wielded only by the resident economic and political elite, but more importantly by citizens and institutions that make democracy, inclusivity and diversity real.
Although Duterte campaign spokesperson Peter Laviña had earlier spoken of constituting a cabinet following the example of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, it is becoming apparent that the incoming cabinet will be composed not only of people trusted by President-elect Duterte but will also reflect the political alliances to which he has entered. Notwithstanding the grand gesture of assigning four key agencies to recommendees of the Left, many of the political alliances have ties to the very oligarchs that the Duterte camp had promised to fight. Perpetuating onerous practices but just doing them in a different location unfortunately does not shift power relations.
Writer and psychologist Bernie Quimpo posted on her social network page a quote from philosopher and civil rights leader Howard Thurman advising that "There are two questions that we have to ask ourselves. The first is 'where am I going?' and the second is 'who will go with me?' If you ever get these questions in the wrong order, you are in trouble". The lines resonated because many interested parties are maneuvering to answer the second question with respect to the composition of the Duterte administration without bothering to deal with the first. I wonder if the incongruence between the statement of Pantaleon Alvarez, elected representative of Davao del Norte and vaunted as the next Speaker of the House, that peace talks with all Moro groups are "back to square one" and the view of Duterte in August 2015 that all peace agreements would be honored is an example of trouble caused by skipping over the question about direction.
The replication of Davao "ganitos" like the bans on public smoking and fireworks, and strict enforcement of traffic rules in other places and the push for the big changes outlined by the elected president will naturally have to involve Davaoeños. By involvement I do not just mean sharing memes promising to conduct trainings for those interested elsewhere in the country on how to be drunk by 1 AM, in reference to the Davao City policy that makes illegal the sale of alcohol by that hour. That meme is hilarious and sharing it online is easy, but our involvement will have to straddle both individual conduct (online and offline) and collective engagement.
Individual conduct is important for change and rule of law; and Davaoeños should continue to demonstrate the 'discipline-as-effort-and-being-invested' aspect of citizenship. Not smoking in public spaces, not lighting fireworks, and abiding by traffic regulations are among the practices that should be a matter of course for Filipinos everywhere if we want to have healthier and safer environments. But they cannot be the only change to which we aspire in the next six years. If they were, then there would be no achieving the promised victory against entrenched oligarchy; and all the campaign frenzy about change, would be rendered pointless.
Davaoeños thus have to be among those who should ask the incoming administration "it's fine to continue good approaches, but what are the improvements to government's economic agenda that are informed by the principles of our leaders and intended to address problems related to oligarchs?"
Among the "ganitos" that characterize Davao is a long history of dynamic civil society groups that constitute a diverse spectrum of orientations and interests and which engage government in various ways: from critical collaboration, to taking on a fiscalizing function, and even outright opposition.
As demonstrated in Davao City and elsewhere, collective engagement and vigilance are as vital as individual discipline and citizenship to social transformation. They are all premised on being invested, making effort, and being prepared to struggle. Recognizing the importance of, and being active in both spheres serve as natural safeguards so that collective action and individual conduct are aligned, coherent and reinforcing.
In the coming days hopefully, the Davaoeño statement: "ganito kami sa Davao" would be issued not as a sign of hubris but as a reminder and invitation. An extended and more inclusive version of it is one that says "ganito kami sa Davao at pwedeng maging ganito tayo sa buong bansa, pero kailangang ipagpatuloy natin ang pakikibaka."
*****
Email feedback to magszmaglana@gmail.com