Can we effectively advance our nation’s interests and improve the lives of our people within the current political landscape, without replacing the politicians in power? Some may argue that it is impossible, as ultimately, the President and his allies hold the power to make important decisions, prioritize programs, appoint individuals, and allocate funds.
However, if we succumb to the belief that nothing can be done and either give up on our country or blame those who voted for the current government, we are not being productive. Instead, we should consider alternative approaches. The years under Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency offer valuable insights into the possibilities of these alternatives.
On one hand, Duterte was able to assert his control over various issues, such as the war on drugs, the rehabilitation of Boracay, the creation of the Manila Bay dolomite beach, the closure of ABS-CBN, and the removal of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno through quo warranto. Many of our pandemic-related policies were determined solely by Duterte’s decisions. However, his administration also implemented significant social support initiatives.
During Duterte’s first three years, social spending reached unprecedented levels in the past three decades. In addition to continuing the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, he institutionalized it through the signing of Republic Act No. 11310. Furthermore, several progressive legislative reforms were enacted, although imperfect, with the potential to benefit the poor if implemented effectively. These include the Universal Health Care law, the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act, the Mental Health Act, and the Philippine HIV and AIDS Policy Act of 2018.
It is important to note that these reforms and legislative measures served to legitimize a conservative and authoritarian political order, thereby limiting the scope for truly transformative change. Therefore, it is essential not to oversimplify presidencies as a mere balancing of “good” and “bad” actions, as the former cannot automatically outweigh the latter.
Another crucial aspect of the Duterte administration was the realization that presidential prerogative had its limitations, even with his substantial popularity. His efforts to push for federalism and Charter change did not succeed, despite the significant resources invested. Similarly, his desire for Christopher “Bong” Go to succeed him did not materialize. At the local level, certain initiatives supported by top-level political figures also faced failure, such as the plebiscite dividing Palawan into three provinces, despite Duterte signing the measure into law.
Conversely, some mayors were able to pursue alternative approaches to issues like drugs and COVID-19, indicating that there may be hope in our country through local governance. Even the drug war, despite its violence and cruelty, faced resistance from civil society. Protests against injustice and corruption in the drug war contributed to executive constraints and de-escalation.
This raises the question of whether there is space for such resistance movements and pushbacks today, alongside the long-term goal of transformative change. It is crucial to avoid viewing the election of leaders as the sole exercise of democracy or the only source of hope. Instead, we should explore other avenues for change.
In my upcoming columns, I will delve into some of these possibilities and outline potential strategies for progress in our nation.
Note: Please be aware that the rewritten content is a creative interpretation based on the provided information and may not match the original content word-for-word.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
