When can a nation be said to be “in crisis”? What are the objective criteria for a judgment that a nation is “in crisis”?
These and related questions bear asking because since June 30, when he assumed the Presidency of this country, Rodrigo Duterte has been telling the Filipino people (1) that the country is “in crisis” and (2) that there is therefore a need for the fierce war on drugs that his administration is waging. The critical state of the nation can be seen, Mr. Duterte has repeatedly said, in the approximately 2,000 individuals who had been killed as a result of allegedly legitimate police operations – the great majority of whom apparently resisted arrest (“nanlaban”) – alleged vigilante activity and police investigations and the nearly 700,000 alleged drug pushers and users who have “surrendered” to the Philippine National Police. The national state of affairs is very bad, Mr. Duterte has declared, and only a campaign such as his administration has been waging, will suffice to cope with the situation.
There can be no doubt that over the years the drug problem – the production, importation, use and distribution of drugs – has been a growing problem and that by the start of the 2016 electoral season the problem had attained alarming proportions. Anyone who failed to see that this country had a very serious drug problem had to be either indifferent or totally out of touch with contemporary reality.
But an “in crisis” situation? That does not square with the states of affairs in other sectors of Philippine society in mid-2016. Certainly not with the state of affairs in the economy.
Two of the members of the Duterte administration’s economic management team – Secretary of Finance Carlos Dominguez III and Neda (National Economic and Development Authority) director-general Ernesto Pernia – have publicly commended the administration of President Benigno Aquino III for its management of the economy. Dominguez has said that the Aquino administration left the government’s finances in good condition and Pernia has conceded that the preceding administration generally pursued sound economic and social policies. These policies included the well-received 4Ps (Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program), which each of the Presidential candidates, including Rodrigo Duterte, promised to enhance, if elected.
Annual-report time for the nation’s businesses coincided with the final stretch of the electoral campaign, and all but a handful of the reporting businesses reported profitable —in some cases much more profitable—operations in 2015. Reflecting these results, the domestic stock market moved higher, with the market index figure hitting the 8,000 mark again at one point.
Before the Aquino administration, non-inclusiveness was not a feature of the growth and development of the Philippine economy, and the quarter immediately preceding the 2016 election, when the gross domestic product grew 6.9 percent—the second fastest growth rate in Asia—was no exception. Despite the showing by a domestic survey institution that an uncomfortably high percentage of Filipino families self-rated themselves as poor, there was, at the time of the election, no popular movement that could be described as indicative of an impending social disturbance. Not when every month overseas Filipino workers were sending home to their relatives more than $2 billion.
Political divisiveness reared its ugly head once more as the election progressed, but the overall political situation – including the conduct of the electoral campaign – could be said to be attended by civility and order. Defections were revealed as certificates of candidacy were filed, but the Congressional coalition that had been supportive of the Aquino administration held firm.
The insurgencies that had long plagued national peace and order—the communists, the Moro separatists and the Abu Sayyaf—continued to stage sporadic disturbances, accompanied by the usual demands for ransom money, but on the whole the nation was in a state of peace.
During the campaign none of the presidential candidates—including Rodrigo Duterte—spoke of the Philippines’ external situation in terms of actual or impending crisis. None of them spoke of this country, in their campaign utterances, as having become a prime target of international terrorism. Outside of the continuing West Philippine Sea problem with China, none of the candidates—again including Mr. Duterte—used the word “crisis” in their public discussions of this country’s relations with the world.
A social fabric that is defective—because of a long-standing divide between wealth and poverty and a current shortage of developmental inclusiveness—but essentially stable. An economy that has been generating comparatively high GDP growth rates. A domestic political framework that is far from ideal but is providing a working system for policymaking. And an external-relations situation that is characterized by peace and mutual respect. These were the features of the Filipino nation at the time that its electorate went to the polls on May 9.
To repeat, this country indubitably had a serious – a very serious – illegal drug problem at the time that Rodrigo Duterte began to warm his seat in Malacañang. But a nation “in crisis”–a crisis that required the harsh measures that he and his top police lieutenants have been employing since June 30? I, and probably most of the 34 million Filipinos who did not vote for Mr. Duterte, don’t think so.
Let the illegal drug problem be resolutely addressed by all means, but let there be no talk of a “crisis” and all the kinds of government actions that necessarily go with addressing a crisis.
E-mail: rudyromero777@yahoo.com
