IT is already given. President Duterte is not shaped from the usual mold of politics. He is crude, and rude and vulgar. And for many, this is what endears him to the many people who worship him like a demi-god. What heightens the adulation is the fact that he comes in as a beautiful contrast to the exclusionary decency and pretentiousness of the yellow elites. He deconstructs and disturbs the comforts within which the oligarchs that dominated the political and economic landscapes thrived. He found a mark in locating his narrative in the context of creating a bogey out of the drug menace and painted it as a national crisis. And he whipped up among his mass base the fear that emanates from images of drug victimization and juxtaposed this with the hatred toward the elites that ruled by excluding and exploiting.
Initially accommodating of the left, which he even granted space in his cabinet, he later turned on them, and added fuel to the anti-left sentiments of his supporters who are adherents of a mainly conservative and right-wing ideology and who are advocates of strong states, the death penalty and criminalizing even children. It didn’t help that the common thread that binds the political opposition is a liberal progressive ideology that advocates for human rights and the strengthening of democratic institutions. Never in our history as a republic has liberal progressive politics been so maligned, and human rights been so misunderstood.
And then there is the era of anti-intellectualism, where smart-shaming becomes a weapon of convenience for people who celebrate non-expertise as a foil to the elitism of the educated and the schooled. Whereas in the past, having an advanced academic degree was seen as a needed warrant to bestow credibility, social media presided over the diminution of diplomas when non-trained but Google-literate bloggers acquired the air of expertise on issues that ranged from the Constitution to vaccination. This is a reaction to the perceived exclusionary and derisive elitism which the schooled and the learned harbored towards ordinary people. The university as an institution is now seen in the Duterte era as a breeding ground of snobbish, out-of-touch intellectuals who are mostly liberal or left-sympathizers. Consequently, they are perceived as enablers of the political opposition, rebellion and destabilization.
The anti-intellectualism that juxtaposes with blind idolatry finds its clearest manifestation in how Duterte supporters, if only to propagate the mythology of a super-president, forcefully assert and insist, contrary to every lesson in basic introductory political science on the principle of separation of powers, that he is bestowed with actual legislative powers. There is no debate that the term of the President saw the passage of legislation that exceeded the record of his predecessor. And he should be thanked for providing the enabling environment for the passing of such laws.
But one needs to be told that while the President can influence the process of making laws by certifying a bill as urgent, articulating a legislative agenda in his state of the nation address (SONA), or convening the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (Ledac), legislation is the sole prerogative of Congress. While it is a fact that the President can exercise his veto power, he doesn’t have the final word considering that Congress can exercise its sole power to override such veto which the President can’t reverse. In fact, a statute passed by Congress can lapse into becoming a law if the President fails to sign it 30 days after receipt.
It must be noted that while the President’s support may have seen the passage of some of these laws, he has rarely certified bills as urgent. He also has not been active in convening Ledac meetings, and in fact he is often quoted as saying that he respects the independence of Congress. While some of his legislative priorities have been addressed by Congress in the case of the Train law and the law on rice tariffs, his support for the re-imposition of the death penalty and the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility appear to be facing stiff opposition in the Senate. This only shows that while support of any President is valued, it doesn’t guarantee immediate or actual passage of a law unless Congress acts favorably on it. The most dramatic evidence of how the President doesn’t meddle in the affairs of Congress is his admission that he was practically helpless in preventing the ouster of former House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez.
But if there is anything that should worry us, it is the fact that while many Duterte supporters believe that he is exempt from the law of diminishing political capital, seen in how he continues to enjoy high approval ratings, and even if he survives, the toll that the prevailing political psychology and culture may inflict on our political landscape in the long run may not be as certain as it is made to appear. If there is one thing that is certain in the uncertain world of politics, it is that there is always a limit, and that nothing is forever.
Advertisements
Recently, one could sense a more tepid reaction to the President’s renewed tirades against the Catholic Church, and to his renewed call for an even fiercer war on drugs. Either people are now becoming desensitized, or that while audacity may be novel at first, there is always the risk that the magic can eventually wear off. It is good that this happens at a time that a string of laws has been signed by the President, thanks to Congress. The danger lies when things become more unfavorable, his political enemies become more emboldened, and his followers remain deluded by the fantasy that he is politically immortal.
https://www.manilatimes.net/the-limits-to-audacity/517349/?utm_source=jubna&utm_medium=jubna_widget&utm_campaign=jubna_trending&utm_term=jubna_recommendation
Initially accommodating of the left, which he even granted space in his cabinet, he later turned on them, and added fuel to the anti-left sentiments of his supporters who are adherents of a mainly conservative and right-wing ideology and who are advocates of strong states, the death penalty and criminalizing even children. It didn’t help that the common thread that binds the political opposition is a liberal progressive ideology that advocates for human rights and the strengthening of democratic institutions. Never in our history as a republic has liberal progressive politics been so maligned, and human rights been so misunderstood.
And then there is the era of anti-intellectualism, where smart-shaming becomes a weapon of convenience for people who celebrate non-expertise as a foil to the elitism of the educated and the schooled. Whereas in the past, having an advanced academic degree was seen as a needed warrant to bestow credibility, social media presided over the diminution of diplomas when non-trained but Google-literate bloggers acquired the air of expertise on issues that ranged from the Constitution to vaccination. This is a reaction to the perceived exclusionary and derisive elitism which the schooled and the learned harbored towards ordinary people. The university as an institution is now seen in the Duterte era as a breeding ground of snobbish, out-of-touch intellectuals who are mostly liberal or left-sympathizers. Consequently, they are perceived as enablers of the political opposition, rebellion and destabilization.
The anti-intellectualism that juxtaposes with blind idolatry finds its clearest manifestation in how Duterte supporters, if only to propagate the mythology of a super-president, forcefully assert and insist, contrary to every lesson in basic introductory political science on the principle of separation of powers, that he is bestowed with actual legislative powers. There is no debate that the term of the President saw the passage of legislation that exceeded the record of his predecessor. And he should be thanked for providing the enabling environment for the passing of such laws.
But one needs to be told that while the President can influence the process of making laws by certifying a bill as urgent, articulating a legislative agenda in his state of the nation address (SONA), or convening the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (Ledac), legislation is the sole prerogative of Congress. While it is a fact that the President can exercise his veto power, he doesn’t have the final word considering that Congress can exercise its sole power to override such veto which the President can’t reverse. In fact, a statute passed by Congress can lapse into becoming a law if the President fails to sign it 30 days after receipt.
It must be noted that while the President’s support may have seen the passage of some of these laws, he has rarely certified bills as urgent. He also has not been active in convening Ledac meetings, and in fact he is often quoted as saying that he respects the independence of Congress. While some of his legislative priorities have been addressed by Congress in the case of the Train law and the law on rice tariffs, his support for the re-imposition of the death penalty and the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility appear to be facing stiff opposition in the Senate. This only shows that while support of any President is valued, it doesn’t guarantee immediate or actual passage of a law unless Congress acts favorably on it. The most dramatic evidence of how the President doesn’t meddle in the affairs of Congress is his admission that he was practically helpless in preventing the ouster of former House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez.
But if there is anything that should worry us, it is the fact that while many Duterte supporters believe that he is exempt from the law of diminishing political capital, seen in how he continues to enjoy high approval ratings, and even if he survives, the toll that the prevailing political psychology and culture may inflict on our political landscape in the long run may not be as certain as it is made to appear. If there is one thing that is certain in the uncertain world of politics, it is that there is always a limit, and that nothing is forever.
Advertisements
Recently, one could sense a more tepid reaction to the President’s renewed tirades against the Catholic Church, and to his renewed call for an even fiercer war on drugs. Either people are now becoming desensitized, or that while audacity may be novel at first, there is always the risk that the magic can eventually wear off. It is good that this happens at a time that a string of laws has been signed by the President, thanks to Congress. The danger lies when things become more unfavorable, his political enemies become more emboldened, and his followers remain deluded by the fantasy that he is politically immortal.
https://www.manilatimes.net/the-limits-to-audacity/517349/?utm_source=jubna&utm_medium=jubna_widget&utm_campaign=jubna_trending&utm_term=jubna_recommendation
No comments:
Post a Comment