Fears about a Duterte presidency

The statement of United States Ambassador Philip Goldberg supporting the concern of Australian Ambassador Amanda Gorely of the trivialization of rape by presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte, reflects the concern of the international community about the strong possibility of a Duterte presidency.

The childish and reckless retort of Duterte, who is leading in the presidential race, daring the U.S and Australia to sever ties with the Philippines if he becomes president strengthened concerns that a Duterte presidency would be a disaster for the country.

The Pacific Strategies and Assessments, an international risk management and strategy development consulting firm, conveyed that concern in its April 18 assessment of the Philippine situation.

PSA noted Duterte’s bizarre ideas like retaking Chinese occupied features in the disputed Spratlys and reviving the steel industry “when demand for steel globally is at its lowest in decades. “

Duterte’s candidacy is a reaction to the calm, deliberate administration of Aquino, which has overtly rejected traditional macho politics. He is presenting familiar themes of populism, identifying enemies and promising to take a hard line against them. He has identified criminals, particularly those involved in drug trafficking, as those who would face his wrath.

The message is particularly effective because the poor are disproportionately affected by crime. PSA data over the past 15 years shows that the vast majority of violent crime occurs in the poorest regions of Metro-Manila and other large Philippine cities. Similarly, violence associated with clan warfare, insurgency, and criminal organizations is most endemic in the poorest provincial areas of the country.

His vow to execute drug dealers and criminals sounds more like a mayor than a presidential candidate to sophisticated political observers, but to millions of Filipinos he is addressing a core concern that has touched their lives directly, far more than five years of gross domestic product growth and the latest blessings from Fitch, Moody’s and other ratings agencies.

As is often the case with populist candidates, policy details fall short. Duterte’s anti-crime plan involves doubling the salaries of police officers, to make them less susceptible to corruption, and then marshalling thousands of police officers, combined with Philippine military special forces troops, to attack organized crime and drug trafficking groups and to kill those that resist.

The simplicity of his plan appeals to many voters, but that same simplicity is what disturbs his detractors. If it was as simple as marshaling officers to attack criminal groups then the problem would have been solved long ago. In reality, the criminal syndicates are feeding a demand for drugs, guns, money, prostitution and other vices that won’t disappear once the syndicates are attacked.

The drug traffickers and criminal syndicates are also deeply intertwined with the police and with politics. Senior Philippine police drug enforcement officers have repeatedly been arrested for trafficking drugs and some lower level officers assist drug traffickers as their sideline business. Politicians accept money from criminal syndicates to finance their campaigns. In short, drugs and crime are deep societal problems that cannot be fixed with an attack by special forces.

Duterte is the opposite of Aquino, a deliberate and introverted politician. Duterte makes off-color jokes, offering to have sex with all the brides at a mass wedding and opening his speeches by promising to change this “bull*** life we live” under the current administration. This is music to the ears of millions of Filipinos who are tired of the carefully scripted policy speeches of Aquino.

Ironically, one of Duterte’s key message is to take a hard line and crack down on corruption, but most domestic and international observers say the Philippines is undergoing one of its least corrupt, best governance periods in decades. While President Aquino’s efforts have only scratched the surface in reducing endemic corruption at all levels of government, it nonetheless represents a significant perceptual improvement over the president’s most recent predecessors.

And Aquino has achieved this with in a distinctly dry, bureaucratic manner that eschews macho politics. He has worked quietly to reform the institutions that drive corruption. One example of this is the new “no-contact” policy for traffic violations in Manila. The program, used in many countries around the world, uses closed circuit cameras to spot traffic violations and then sends the evidence (a photo of the incident) along with the fine to the registered owner of the vehicle.

There is nothing sexy or macho about the program but it is potentially one of the most powerful traffic policies ever put in place in the Philippines. If implemented properly, it could simultaneously stop the chronic petty corruption of traffic cops while at the same time bringing increased safety and discipline to the mean streets of Manila, particularly among the Mad Max provincial bus drivers and disrespectful jeepney drivers.

Duterte also uses closed circuit television extensively in Davao, but he uses it to direct a bare knuckles police force against street criminals. Duterte has fashioned himself as a problem solver in his town. He has not only cleaned streets of crime, and litter, but he has improved fire and ambulance services and fixed a wide range of problems that directly affect ordinary citizens. But solving the problems in a city, with the sweeping powers of a mayor, is much different than solving the problems of a nation with the muted, shared powers of a presidency.

As president, Duterte has offered a raft of questionable proposals, including bizarre suggestions. He has said he will negotiate directly with China on the South China Sea, something that China wants because it will allow them get the United States, the United Nations and other power players out of the mix. If China does not return the islands that the Philippines claims, Duterte says he will singlehandedly retake them himself. That’s a fun line for a campaign speech but it does not provide much insight into the actual problem and is merely foolhardy rhetoric.

Duterte has also vowed revive the country’s steel industry at a time when demand for steel globally is at its lowest in decades. He supports foreign ownership of land and key industries, which many see as a main impediment to the Philippine economy and he has called for an outright ban on mining – which could bring tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to the economy if properly managed.

Rodrigo Duterte is not going to sail out to the Spratlys and reclaim them. He is not going to build a steel industry around a collapsing global market for steel. He is not going to solve drug trafficking and crime with special forces troops. These are the populist lines that he is throwing out to get elected. But that leaves the most pressing question: what then is he doing to do? The uncertainty around that question is the real danger of a Duterte administration.