Bangkok Post

What’s wrong with the Philippine­s?

- Gwynne Dyer Gwynne Dyer is an independen­t journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries. His new book is ‘The Shortest History of War’.

‘ Bongbong” Marcos didn’t just win the presidenti­al election in the Philippine­s this week. He won it by a two-to-one landslide, despite the fact that he is the extremely entitled son of a former president who stole at least US$10 billion and a mother who spent the loot partly on the world’s most extensive collection of designer shoes (3,000 pairs).

Moreover, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, to give him his real name, has yet to achieve his own accomplish­ments other than that name. Yet his name and his inherited wealth, originally have enabled him to hold various political offices almost continuous­ly (apart from five years in exile) since he was 23.

Equally deplorable is the electoral triumph of his vice-presidenti­al ally, Sara Duterte, daughter of the incumbent Rodrigo Duterte. The latter is leaving the presidency at the end of his six-year term, and he is still wildly popular despite the many thousands of extrajudic­ial killings of accused “drug fiends” that he has ordered.

Indeed, those extra-judicial killings are why Rodrigo Duterte is so popular, and his daughter basks in the reflected glory. A lot of Filipinos adore politician­s and other prominent people who are loud, rude and macho. Yet, sometimes, they elect apprentice saints.

The senior Ferdinand Marcos was legitimate­ly elected president in 1965 but declared martial law when he was nearing the end of his second term in 1972. Martial law lasted for another 14 years.

After that first President Marcos ran the country’s economy into the ground, he was ousted in 1986 in the first of the “people power” non-violent revolution­s. The saintly Cory Aquino, whose husband had been assassinat­ed, was elected to the presidency, while everybody applauded the Philippine­s’ restored democracy.

But in 1998 the Filipinos elected Joseph “Erap” Estrada, a former movie star famed for playing the villain, in another landslide. He immediatel­y began feathering his nest, and, after three years was impeached for “plunder”. But it took a second “people power” popular uprising to get him out.

The 2004 Global Transparen­cy Report listed Mr Estrada as number ten on a list of the “World’s All-Time Most Corrupt Leaders”, but he was a mere piker compared to Ferdinand Marcos Sr, who held the No.2 spot.

After the fall of Mr Estrada there were two modestly competent presidents — and then, in 2016, Rodrigo Duterte became president winning another landslide victory.

Mr Duterte delighted in insulting people — he called both the Pope and Barack Obama “son of a whore” — and his supporters lapped it up. And this time the Filipinos haven’t even paused for an interlude of dignity and sanity before electing “Bongbong” Marcos to succeed him.

It’s as if the same country were to elect Viktor Orban, Boris Johnson, Donald Trump, and Jair Bolsonaro to the presidency with only brief intervals in between, just to see what would happen.

The Philippine­s is a leading contender for the title of “world’s most populist country”, which is hard to explain because its lost twin behaves in a quite different way. Just to the west of the Philippine­s is Indonesia, another country of many islands whose people are ethnically and linguistic­ally very close to the Filipinos.

Per capita income is about 30% higher in Indonesia, mainly because of oil, but the economies are basically quite similar. Both countries lived for decades under murderous dictators, and both finally overthrew them in non-violent revolution­s, the Philippine­s in 1986, Indonesia in 1998.

However, since Indonesia became a democracy it has elected only presidents who were under accusation of purging political opponents and siphoning money, while some Filipinos hurl themselves enthusiast­ically at plausible fraud who gains a bit of notoriety. Why?

It could have something to do with the fact that Indonesia was converted to Islam at about the same time the Philippine­s became Christian (and specifical­ly Catholic), but probably not. Each is the majority faith in a wide variety of countries, and neither manifests a single distinctiv­e political style across the span of all those countries. So what is it, then?

Two hypotheses, both weak, come to mind. First, the Philippine­s has an unusually powerful elite of big, rich families with strong regional bases. This week’s vote, for example, was shaped by a recent alliance between the Marcos family (northern and central Philippine­s) and the Duterte family (southern Philippine­s).

The other hypothesis? Ninety-nine percent of adult Filipinos are online, and Filipinos aged 16 to 64 spend on average nearly four hours a day connected to social networks.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Thailand