The paradox of autocracy
IN their article “How Democracy Dies,” Harvard professors Steven Levistky and Daniel Ziblatt observed that, nowadays, democracy is destroyed, not by a military takeover, but by “elected leaders who subvert the very process that brought them to power,” maintaining “a veneer of democracy while eviscerating its substance.”
They expounded: “Institutions become political weapons, wielded forcefully by those who control them against those who do not. This is how elected autocrats subvert democracy— packing and ‘weaponizing’ the courts and other neutral agencies, buying off the media and the private sector (or bullying them into silence), and rewriting the rules of politics to permanently disadvantage their rivals. The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s enemies use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it.”
The Philippines is not unfamiliar to their observations. In 1972, the dictator Ferdinand Marcos used the 1935 Constitution, the basis of his presidency, to usher in his one-man rule. He replaced the 1935 Constitution with his own, providing the legal infrastructure for autocracy. Among others, amendment Numbers 5 and 6 allowed him to legislate, making the Batasan Pambansa a farce. Marcos’ exclusive power to select magistrates made judicial independence illusory.
Conspiracy theories among the left, moderate, and even the right -- leaning sectors of society were first bandied about and later irrationally given course. Freedoms of speech and press were curtailed. Critics were considered subversives. Among the first ordered arrested were Senators Jose Diokno, Francisco Rodrigo, Jovito Salonga, and Benigno Aquino Jr., who dared to vocally express their opposition. Critical broadcasters and journalists, such as Jose Mari Velez and Max Soliven, were likewise incarcerated.
The people marveled at the only news spewed by a propagandistmedia: a peaceful Philippines. But the reality was that tortures, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, gross violations of human rights, and grand larceny by government officials occurred. The situation was in fact the “peace of the grave” as John F. Kennedy put it and the enrichment of the corrupt.
Under a “veneer of democracy,” are administration officials now, in essence, also “eviscerating its substance” wittingly or unwittingly? Similarly, there is a move to replace the 1987 Constitution with the “Bayanihan” Constitution providing for a Federal Transition Commission with seemingly vast powers headed by the President. The Supreme Court is packed with President Duterte’s appointees (at least majority). Former Chief Justice Sereno was ousted in a controversial Supreme Court decision after President Duterte publicly said she was his enemy. Senator De Lima is now incarcerated on charges which, according to former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, lacked basis. Senator Trillanes is in danger of being arrested due to President Duterte’s revocation of his amnesty -- an unconstitutional act to many legal experts. The Rappler closure, though on appeal, is widely considered as repression of a highly critical press.
The “Red October” plot is bandied about. But the assertion’s incredulity is betrayed by the fact that while seasoned politicians have lately been absolved from colluding with the communists, young and most likely immature and naïve high-school and college students are being implicated as connivers.
Unsolved murders are continuing and, as if to affirm them, President Duterte made a public admission of extrajudicial killing as his only sin, though the citizenry was told that it was a matter of Visayan semantics not to be understood as uttered. Institutions are perceived either as subservient to the executive, such as the House of Representatives, or the target of the President’s ire, like the Commission on Audit.
Many are wary that democratic institutions are being eroded. But there is hope.
And that hope brings us to the ultimate paradox of an authoritarian regime if indeed it is existing or , at the very least, developing. In such a system, autocratic ways seem to be always “winning” and democratic advocacy ends up on the “losing” side. But, throughout history, principled people have persisted in opposing despotism, heeding Nobel Laureate, political scientist, and holocaust-survivor Professor Elie Wiesel’s advice that “there may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” And in the end, also in the course of history, goodness, decency, and reason will always prevail.
Be on the right side of history in its most trying times. Desist from fencesitting. Take the principled stand, even against insurmountable odds. This may yet be your greatest legacy, one that your children and your children’s children can proudly descant to future generations.