Oddly Defending Duterte

Sometimes referred to locally as "Duterte Harry"

It is not really my place to comment on Philippines politics. It is not my country. But well-meaning fellow Canadians have been sending me messages of concern about the dangers of living under such an oppressive totalitarian regime. I feel under some moral obligation to set the record straight. As in the case of Saudi Arabia, the Canadian press has things very wrong.

I guess we should not be surprised these days about the press getting things wrong, especially when writing about something far away.

To begin with, the odd image with which the linked story begins: of President Duterte “appearing constantly on the 24 hour news channel.” Makes it sound like 1984, or like Communist China used to be, with government the only source for news. We have TV, without any foreign channels, and do not see Duterte on the screen any more often than a Canadian television viewer might see Justin Trudeau. And in similar contexts: often also featuring someone criticizing him. If there is some government 24-hour news channel, nobody we know has discovered it. The Philippines actually has a pretty free-wheeling press.

It has also always been dangerous to be a journalist here; but murders of reporters have actually gone down under Duterte.

The fact that Duterte is at loggerheads with the Catholic Church is not newsworthy. Every Philippines administration at least since Marcos, with the exception of Corazon Aquino’s, has been at loggerheads with the Catholic Church. Traditionally the Church hierarchy holds the government’s feet to the fire. Governments rarely respond by showing anything like reverence. Duterte is more blunt than most about it; but this seems just part of his tough guy act. He is not even novel in that. He’s acting and talking just like Estrada did in his day.

One paragraph from the article:

“Duterte has launched a hate-filled anti-Catholic campaign that is a match for the most virulent forms of Islamophobia. A cathedral in the Philippines was bombed Jan. 27, killing 20 people. Several Catholic priests have been killed on his watch. Somehow he is getting away with it.”

I think Duterte would have a solid court case here to sue for libel. He is, like most Filipinos, not concerned with being PC. But this clearly implies that he was behind the cathedral bombing or the priest murders, doesn’t it? The cathedral was bombed by Islamist terrorists. Duterte is as much to blame as Macron is for the fire at Notre Dame, or Bush for 9/11. Takes one whale of a conspiracy theory to make that claim.

The clear suggestion that Filipinos might be afraid to speak their minds about Duterte is also wildly wrong. Naturally enough, he has many supporters, but even they tend not to be doctrinaire about it. Probably most people are openly critical of him about one thing or another in conversation.

There is actually far more freedom of speech, and far less fear of repercussions for expressing your opinion on any matter at all, in the Philippines than in Canada. Nobody in the Philippines has to watch what they say. Everybody in Canada, by contrast, has to guard their speech carefully. If Filipino-Canadians are indeed afraid of expressing their opinions about Duterte, that says more about an oppressive atmosphere in Canada, than back in the Philippines. They are aware that anything they say in Canada can be used against them at some future date. In Canada, quite possibly, it is not safe to express support for Duterte, just as it is not safe to express support for Donald Trump.

I do not like defending Duterte. I would never have voted for him. I oppose him just as I opposed Trudeau pere invoking the War Measures Act, for the same reasons. His government is acting lawlessly, with its extrajudicial killings. But for the average Filipino, the Duterte government is not a clear and present menace. It is like the situation when Mafia factions used to war in the streets of Chicago or New York. They were ruthless about killing each other, but killing civilians was forbidden between them. So too with Duterte’s vigilantes and the criminal gangs. So long as you yourself keep away from systematic criminal activity, you are not likely to be caught in any crossfire. The situation in Canada is quite different: well-meaning people acting morally and minding their own business can become victims at any moment. There is no real way to predict trouble or to defend yourself.

Duterte, it is true, is sometimes killing drug addicts as well as dealers. This seems very wrong to us in Canada, where the established idea is that we are to pity the addict and put all the blame on the dealers. But perhaps it is not self-evidently wrong. Are alcoholics not at all responsible for their alcoholism? Then how does AA work? In Canada we certainly hold cigarette smokers at least in large part responsible for their smoking. And we legally hold the customers entirely responsible in the case of prostitution, and the dealers innocent. Duterte is at least being consistent. His position is more logically defensible than ours.

Generally, what the Canadian press cannot seem to get is that the problem in the Philippines, as in the Middle East, is not too much or too oppressive government, but too little. The problem has been that the government was not in control. Local gangs, criminals, and corrupt officials could act with impunity. We are so far from that in Canada with our traditions of peace, order, and good government that we cannot apparently conceive of what that means. In my wife’s home town, people were fairly regularly murdered by neighbours or relatives, and nothing ever happened to the murderer. The killer just moved away—or perhaps not.

You can forgive so many Filipinos for feeling that it may take a tough guy to get things under control.