Joal’s reluctant admiration of Duterte

Last Thursday, while blogging for news in Facebook, I chanced on Jose T. Almonte’s press conference for Malacanang media. To me, it was like seeing a ghost because the former national security adviser has been out of the public eye for quite a while. He has retired and kept much to his private life. Except perhaps on the launching of his book, Endless Journey with friends and admirers which filled up the Kalayaan Hall. Both he and President Duterte come from lower middle class ( not rich but not very poor either). It is from these origins that both strove to make something of themselves through self-study and use real life experiences as their higher education.

They have developed extraordinary careers in their chosen fields of endeavor – Joal as an intellectual soldier (hard to find these days) and Duterte as an unorthodox politician ( a rara avis). On the unorthodox politician most of us thought it would take a miracle to have one and win as President in an elite-dominated society like the Philippines. You must be acceptable to big business.

Almonte conceded that Duterte has done well, fulfilling most of his campaign promises in his first 100 days. He admitted it was Duterte’s approach to the country’s fundamental problems – “internal war, broken politics and monopolized business.” He said Duterte’s record was exceptional. But like many others he criticized the President for his “colorful language.” I beg to differ. I think it was this “colorful language” that connected him with the masses and that to me is the most significant job in putting this country together. It is divided not just by politics as we know it. “Let us all be friends” is not the mantra for a well-run democratic society. What is, is “how to manage our differences” with strong institutions.

I don’t know how Duterte developed his “colorful language.” Did he plan it or did it come to him naturally that it was the style needed get the attention and friendship of the masses?

Whatever. It is a fact that he was able to connect with the poor – marginalized sectors and bring them into nation building. I saw and heard this many times in his rallies of thousands who would not listen to educated, well-prepared speeches. But they connected with his “colorful language” and to each other with the words p..i..m. They clapped and applauded his “colorful language” speeches deliriously. They were enthralled with a presidential candidate who could communicate in the language they were familiar with. Listen to conversations among the masses and they are replete with p..i..m. They were at home with him. He didn’t bore them like the polite speeches made by speech writers of politicians. Instead they had a nice time attending the rallies to have a good laugh from someone who wants to be their leader by talking like them. In fact, p..i..m peppered their talk at home or sitting around the sari-sari stores as an expletive not different from the English “fuck you” which is not derided but taken as idiomatic speaking.

Duterte recently said he may be bi-polar but whatever name you give it the fact is there is language to address big audiences of the masses and another for state leaders and high government officials. I have also heard him speak differently on those occasions when he needs to.

I think Almonte referring to Duterte’s “colorful language” was more concerned with his tirades against President Obama and other Western leaders. It is obviously coming from a deeply felt anticolonialism.

Almonte says he should tone down his language. It detracts from his accomplishments.

I do not think so. Netanyahu also told Obama to go to hell but got what he wanted anyway. US criticisms of his war on illegal drugs, Duterte also told Obama to “go to hell” and warned he may decide to “break up with America.” There are other examples but it is not true that polite language is more effective. Rightly or wrongly polite language represents the power of the status quo when they ask Duterte to conform.

Duterte wants to change the world order into something less hypocritical. The history of US-Philippine relations shows that the ”good boy” behavior only gets them bullied.

But Duterte has a wild card – a review of the (EDCA) Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement which President Obama carried home with speed and haste before we even realized how it would affect our security and well- being. Nor did they even bother to talk about returning this symbol of America’s perfidy in the Philippines – the Balangiga Bells.

President Duterte has said it often enough that his foreign policy is to be friends with everyone, including the United States and China. But to put such foreign policy in place, he must give notice to the world it will no longer be America’s patsy in the region.

Joal must have had a tough time maneuvering thru the issue of Duterte’s “colorful language” and a desire to convince the general Filipino public that this is the heart of the problem. In fact the two are components of the push for a more independent Philippines.

Frankly that capability has long been delayed by timid Philippine presidents who did not dare to cross the line. Détente did. For that he faces the danger of being removed from political scene because what America wants, America gets.