WHILE many have criticized President Digong for his blunt admission that he abused his maid, critics failed to see how much of a political strategy it was. There is no question that his style, as always, is gross and below standards in any measure within a civilized society, nonetheless it is effective.
To Duterte’s defense is no less presidential spokesman Sal Panelo who explained the matter in a manner quite literary but confusing:
"In his inimitable allegorical style of dramatizing the sexual abuse the President suffered when he was a minor, he has made up a laughable anecdote to dramatize the fact of sexual abuse (by a priest) that was inflicted on him and his fellow students when they were in high school."
Such a complex and brilliant mind in Digong takes an exegete like Panelo in order to uncover the layers of meanings that the speaker intended. Digong’s speech is as difficult as the lost Gospel of Judas because one has to first recover fragments of information before everything or anything could be understood.
I am not missing the fact though that behind the apparent complexity in Digong’s rhetoric is a strategy. The strategy of “confessing” is not a new form of political discourse. It was the Church Father St. Augustine who first taught us that should one want to establish integrity in public, one has to speak of one’s own faults and therefore publicly ask for forgiveness. In doing this that is by confessing his sins, Duterte is trying to tell his opponents that he may be rude but at least he is honest. That he may be washing dirty linens in public but unlike the bishops and priests he is not a hypocrite.
For Duterte’s avid fans and supporters – their Tatay Digong has again scored. He, for them, is the man we need: someone who is honest even if he would sound below the belt. Transparency is more important than decency. But this is what I see as problematic. The said to be confessions of Digong in order to highlight the hypocrisy of institutions is no less hypocritical.
Duterte is no Augustine; they are essentially different. Augustine’s Confessions was written after his conversion, while Duterte reveals his stories without any moral grounding or projection towards any possible conversion. A genuine confession serves its purpose if one says it in truth and in the spirit of transformation and conversion.
While Digong is trying to highlight the hypocrisy of institutions, especially the religious, he has missed the fact that he is not in any way better. Digong is not alone on this. Truth to tell, we all have the tendency to call anyone or anything hypocrite especially if we feel unjustly treated. But really, when can we say that there is hypocrisy? Are we saying that simply because we are asked to follow the law that those who saw it right even if they are not perfect are hypocrite?
The dictionary defines the word “hypocrite” as someone who “lies, pretends, or deceives.” There is no denying it that one way or another we can be hypocrites. But let’s also be fair, just because we cannot absolutely live up to certain moral standards does not mean that all standards should be erased.
One has to make a distinction between the rational adherence to standards and the use of “moralizing” in order to take advantage of other people. The latter is hypocrisy. We have to be careful when to call “the other” hypocrite, else we too would be guilty of being selfish, subjective, self-centered and equally hypocritical for calling others names they don’t deserve.
If Tatay Digong is serious in his promotion of integrity he doesn’t need to barrage his opponents with dirty tactics. When Jesus called the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees hypocrites it was not because they merely believed in the law as its implementers. Jesus saw them as using the law for personal gains and advantage.
The criticisms against the president, such as human rights violations, should therefore be answered with facts, figures, and principles. And just because he cannot give any – does not mean that he is in a better position to label his opponents “hypocrites.” His failure to explain his side in all truthfulness is in itself a gesture of lack of self-reflection. He too is a hypocrite even if he would make a thousand confessions in his speeches or even on Facebook.