Philippine election a chance to rethink the liberal narrative

Dan Steinbock says foreign critiques of Duterte are in stark contrast to trust he enjoys at home

Almost everything you have heard about the Philippines in the past six years is fake news. Here is the standard narrative: After Rodrigo Duterte won the 2016 presidential election in the Philippines, the strongman’s violent war on drugs devastated the country. His appeasement of China has derailed Manila’s foreign policy. The 2022 election triumph of Ferdinand “Bongbong”

Marcos Jnr, the son of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, could further destabilise the status quo.

Here is the real story: During their three decades in control, the liberals failed the People Power movement. Before the Duterte era, drugs were killing the poorest neighbourhoods, corrupting politics and giving rise to “narco-generals”.

Despite the devastation wrought by the Covid-19 pandemic, the Philippine economy has expanded in the Duterte era while foreign investment has increased. Duterte enjoys widespread public trust in the country, and the campaign of Marcos and Davao City mayor Sara DuterteCarpio – the daughter of the incumbent president – will build on his legacy.

Marcos, whose father was president from 1965 to 1986, has garnered a large lead in the polls with around 56 per cent support. His main rival for the job, current Philippine Vice-President Leni Robredo, is polling around 23 per cent.

Other candidates for president have only attracted marginal support. With the share of undecided voters shrinking, Marcos appears to be the favourite barring any last-minute developments. His running mate Duterte enjoys a similar advantage in the race for vice-president, polling at around 58 per cent, a lead of more than 30 points on her nearest rival.

The Marcos-Duterte campaign enjoys broad regional support. Marcos has a significant presence in the north of the country as the former governor of Ilocos Norte province. Duterte, mayor of the largest city in Mindanao, is widely known in the south.

The two hope to consolidate the current president’s “build, build, build” infrastructure initiative while promoting investment in human capital and healthcare. They plan to prioritise the industrial, agricultural and tourism sectors to create more jobs. Marcos has said he is open to considering legalising divorce in the country and allowing abortion “for severe cases” such as rape and incest.

In foreign policy, Marcos and Duterte say they would retain military ties with the United States. However, they also plan to continue to recalibrate the economic relationship with China, which is the country’s largest trading partner and second-largest source of foreign tourists.

Marcos appears to favour a less confrontational stance towards China compared to other presidential candidates. Marcos and Duterte support regional integration with the Philippines’ Southeast Asian peers. They stress Philippine interests in the South China

Sea but also talks with China on a regional code of conduct.

After their electoral defeat in 2016, the Liberal Party has struggled to regain the support of the Filipino public. The opposition has spoken out strongly against several government initiatives during the Duterte era, including the war on drugs and seeking friendlier relations with China.

Since the rise of the People Power Movement in 1986, the party has portrayed itself as its institutional embodiment. The narrative is flawed, but it has been bought by too many international observers and media. In reality, the movement has failed most Filipinos.

In the early 1960s, the Philippines’ per capita income on a purchasing power parity basis was higher than that of Malaysia and over twice as high as that of Thailand. By 2016, Philippine per capita income had fallen behind that of Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia.

The polarisation of income and wealth in the Philippines did not reach its peak in the Marcos era but during the three decades when the country fell most behind its Southeast Asian peers. Not only did the liberals fail to ignite Philippine modernisation, they left Filipinos in poverty.

Efforts to undo Duterte’s recalibrated ties with China are championed by former Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio – who has popularised the term “West Philippine Sea” – and former foreign affairs secretary Albert del Rosario. They are the key players in the pro-US, anti-China coalition.

Del Rosario’s think tank, the Strat-base ADR Institute, has been busy promoting these goals. Since last year, it has attempted to make China a central issue in this year’s presidential election.

The Philippines filed its arbitration case against China over disputes in the South China Sea during Del Rosario’s tenure as foreign secretary. That was followed by the 2014 Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement, which opened the country to US military, ships and planes for the first time since 1991.

Today, after much wheeling and dealing, the US-Philippines Visiting Forces Agreement is back in effect. Last autumn, the Philippines agreed to hold more than 300 military activities with the US in 2022.

Del Rosario’s fight for the South China Sea has been portrayed as being over the struggles of poor Filipino fishermen. In fact, it is about oil extraction. Del Rosario was in the past a director of Philex Mining, whose partner company was granted rights to drill in the South China Sea.

The big question is whether the future of the Philippines will be driven by military pacts or peaceful development which fosters the living standards of ordinary Filipinos. Rising prosperity is only viable through peace and stability.

In foreign policy, Marcos and Duterte say they would retain military ties with the United States