Noise

To my mind, the Duterte administration is like a popcorn maker. It is popping all the time, creating constant political noise that far exceeds political substance.

Five months in office, we have all gotten used to the President’s stream-of-consciousness monologues. Journalists covering him have learned to filter out the expletives and supply the nouns that often drop off his speech or crawl under his breath.

No one will say the past five months were uneventful. On the contrary, there has never been a dull moment. Between flagrantly urging his policemen to “shoot to kill” and announcing his “separation” from the US, President Duterte kept us on the edge of our seats.

The President’s engagements are closely covered by the broadcast media. Even his most unimportant speeches are aired live. This did not happen before.

There could only be two reasons for the round-the-clock coverage. First, the mainstream media is trying to keep pace with social media that never sleeps. Second, we really never know if he will say something important, even (or especially) in the dead of night.

In the past, the Palace communications team alerts the media when the President is about to say something important. In the Age of Duterte, because he disdains prepared speeches, no such advisories could be made. The President goes into long monologues about whatever strikes his fancy at a particular moment, whether this be the gender preferences of a former ambassador or the finer points of riding a motorcycle.

On hard issues where questions tend to accumulate, however, the President is capable of being as silent as the Sphinx.

This week, for instance, he refused to discuss the matter involving CIDG-8 officer Marvin Marcos. The officer was sacked by the PNP chief when linked to the drug protection racket and then abruptly restored to his post on orders of Duterte. We recall, shortly after Mayor Rolando Espinosa was killed in his jail cell, the President readily accepted the official police version of the event. Now the NBI says it was a rubout.

The other matter the normally voluble Duterte has been silent about involves the firing of Leni Robredo. The Vice President resigned her post after receiving instructions to “desist” from attending Cabinet meetings.

At other times, and in other climes, the resignation would have been an earthshaking event. There would have been lengthy justifications and probably a parliamentary debate on the matter. But here and now, the resignation by the Vice President has been treated almost as something routine.

This is all very strange. It should be a significant political break. No one, however, seems interested in discussing it.

True, Leni Robredo tested the President’s tolerance by openly disagreeing with the Chief Executive’s decision on the matter of the Marcos burial and the way the war on drugs is going. The President’s supply of tolerance for disagreement is famously scarce. By asking the Vice President to “desist” from attending Cabinet meetings, the resignation was precipitated.

When asked why the left-leaning Cabinet members who objected to the burial were spared the same fate Robredo suffered, the presidential spokesman said something strange. He drew a differentiation between the “political” position Robredo took and the “ideological” position taken by the leftists. Although they were all saying the same thing, there seems to be a difference – at least in the mind of the spokesman.

Duterte boosters celebrate the firing of Robredo as an act of decisiveness --- although there might be more polite ways of separating an elected public official from her portfolio.

From where I sit, this seems more an act of impunity. The effective firing of Robredo by text message could only happen because the Chief Executive was supremely confident no adverse political repercussion would emanate from the act.

As subsequent events demonstrate, Duterte’s political calculation appears to be precise. There was little grumbling, except from Robredo’s decimated party mates.

The remaining LP members might feel offended, but they do not possess the political courage to transform this event into a major realignment of political forces. They whimpered instead of denounced the act – and then announced they would remain in the majority fold. These are political eunuchs who deserve no respect from a supremely confident power player.

This is the disconcerting element of it all. We have a brash political leader unchecked by any effective political force. That seems to be an invitation for more petulant behavior.

Our spineless political system, with weak political parties and turncoat politicians, has always been vulnerable to charismatic leaders who overrun institutions. This political system does not encourage Duterte, already temperamentally disposed to the autocratic style of provincial mayors, to be consultative and consensual.

At this moment, we seem to be observing the slow erosion of consultative and consensual processes in our politics. When those processes erode, accountability eventually follows suit.

The question is often asked by avid observers of our unique politics: Does Duterte have a long-term political strategy?

I would not think so. Because he has no long-term strategy, and is driven by existential events and opportunities, he will likely stumble his way towards strongman rule. This will happen less by design but by temperament, less by strategy but by public expectation.

The public, like the President, is impatient for results. We are less concerned with methods and more impressed with outcomes. Political leaders are governed by the pull of public expectation and less by the niceties of building institutions.

For better or for worse, Duterte’s heavy-handed methods will be rewarded with popularity points. That, in turn, will encourage heavy-handedness.