Dutertesplainin’ to do

MANILA, Philippines - There are many interesting people you will meet in this life. Dutertesplainers are one of them — those who tout presidentiable Rody Duterte as the do-all-and-end-all of the Philippines, attempting to persuade if you think otherwise. And if you do think otherwise, it’s often because of a faulty portion of your character — because you are rich, because you are elitist, because you are detached from the realities and members of your own society.

With Duterte’s rise in recent election surveys, you could say it isn’t hard to find these specimens. Keep your ears open for any election conversation down the street, and chances are, you’ll hear his name come up somewhere. “’Pag naging presidente si Duterte, uunlad ang Pilipinas,” “Kailangan natin ng kamay na bakal,” “Si Duterte kasi, totoong tao ‘yan.” And then comes the Dutertesplaining: “Takot ka lang sa pagbabago,” “Masyado mo kasi sineryoso sinabi niya,” “Hindi ka kasi galing sa paghihirap,” “Sinisiraan lang siya.”

There’s a certain, twisted formula that comes with these scripts; one which blocks off any chance of discourse with the certainty that the other side is wrong. As if it is the duty of the Dutertesplainer — to educate such ill-wrought and misinformed citizens on the truth of a Duterte presidency, even under dubious facts. The kind of facts that make you wonder whether they’ve been taken from Duterte’s actual record, or some strange islet of the Internet.

But that doesn’t mean all Duterte supporters are Dutertesplainers. Or that Duterte is the worst candidate ever. But if we’re gunning for a full-on, well-rounded discussion on political candidates — particularly Rody Duterte — we’ll need a more nuanced way that doesn’t involve invalidating the other side.

The word “Dutertesplaining” should give us a clue. Taken from “mansplaining” — which, according to Merriam-Webster, “occurs when a man talks condescendingly to someone (especially a woman) about something he has incomplete knowledge of, with the mistaken assumption that he knows more about it […]” – Dutertesplaining has the similar tendency to silence dissenting voices by making them appear incompetent. This can be done through various means: An attack on the opponent’s character (“Takot ka lang sa pagbabago”), an appeal to miscommunication (“Masyado mo kasi sineryoso sinabi niya”), a highlighting of class divide (“Hindi ka kasi galing sa paghihirap”), or blaming externalities (“Sinisiraan lang siya”).

Which is all well and good for fanfare, but when it comes to actual, constructive discussion, they are problematic on many levels. What is interesting about these arguments are the cohesive narratives that run across them — narratives that make you wonder if they really pertain to Duterte, or something else entirely.

Duterte, in the eyes of the Dutertesplainer, could do no wrong. Yes, he curses. Yes, he cheats. But he gets things done — ask any Dabawenyo or witness to his governance. It’s a kind of untouchable, sacred cow argument: You may not come from Davao, but as long as you believe in Duterte’s prowess as a leader, then you are right. Otherwise, if you do not come from Davao and oppose him, it’s because you’ve never seen what he has done in Davao. There is a sense of exclusivity.

The same kind, you could say, that prompts Dutertesplainers to support Duterte’s calls for capital punishment and death penalty. Criminals, ne’er-do-wells, undisciplined hooligans must pay with their lives, because I am definitely not part of the problem. In an effort to bring about a combined front among supporters, Dutertesplainers have effectively crafted a divide — “us” against “them,” the chosen few versus those who have not seen the light.

There seems to be messianic undertones in these sentiments. And it isn’t all too surprising — whereas mansplaining (where Dutertesplaining takes its name from), is done from a position of privilege, Dutertesplaining seems to come from a position of marginalization. 

In a country where bad men run loose, people get killed for starving and politicians stand apathetic, you’re sure to get heavy doses of disillusionment from its citizenry. An almost desperate sort of disillusionment that begs for any sign of stability, of hope in times when there doesn’t seem to be room for it.

And suddenly, there springs a candidate who breaks from the mold, whose bold proclamations and devil-may-care attitude might just be the solution the people have been looking for. He who speaks their language, knows their plight, and lo and behold — could actually do something about it. It’s no wonder why Dutertesplainers cling to this idealized version of their candidate — in a chaotic world, any semblance of meaning and salvation is to be cherished.

But this is not without cost. There is nothing wrong with hoping, or for desiring for something better for the country. But when it comes to the point of condescension, or the unwillingness to grow, then the cost we pay is the stagnation of our dealings — not just politically, but among ourselves as well.

In retrospect, a lot of the arguments provided by Dutertesplaining could fit other scenarios as well. Take the Binay-Makati argument, for instance. Or the Marcos era call for discipline. Dutertesplaining isn’t even about Duterte — it’s about vengeance for those who have suffered from the misgivings of the government since time immemorial. But vengeance never sprung any lasting, noble change.

So as elections draw nearer, it’s time to put down Dutertesplaining arms and replace it with a healthier perspective to the Duterte discussion. Regardless of who wins, the whole Philippines could benefit from a little compassion.