Status quo working against the Duterte camp

The status quo is at work in the political saga between the erstwhile UniTeam, now split into the Marcos administration and the Duterte camp, putting the latter in a surprisingly tight situation. The Dutertes have made several political missteps in recent months, leading to events that now include the unfolding drama in Davao City over attempts to serve a warrant of arrest against a fugitive pastor.

Hinting at a potential lack of adept political advising, the Dutertes and their allies have been making unforced errors, so to speak. I think this can be traced to their misreading of the current political climate and the nature of the Philippine status quo.

Former president Rodrigo Duterte rose to power in 2016 due to a combination of key factors, including effective use of social media, populist messaging, public desire for change, regionalism, and his tight grip on Davao City, which allowed him to project an image of decisive leadership.

Throughout our history, the Philippines has always had a powerful chief executive. To remain in office without serious challenges, Duterte, in 2016, entered into a marriage of convenience with major Philippine political parties. This alliance provided him with substantial political capital, enabling him to pursue his major project --a violent war on drugs.

In the words of political scientist Julio C. Teehankee (2016), “The Philippine presidency is the first and most durable in Asia. As a political institution, it has been rendered enough constitutional power to have a formal semblance of a ‘strong presidency’ but apparently not enough to totally control strategic interests in Philippine society.”

Thus, no president can afford to be politically complacent, yet he has all the advantages of the prestige and power of the office. Given this reality, what missteps did former president Duterte and his allies make?

One notable mistake is the Duterte camp’s apparent sympathy for, or defense of, Pastor Apollo Quiboloy. The pastor’s open defiance of the legal process is not a politically-advantageous stance to align with. Although our institutions may be compromised, the public generally disapproves of those who blatantly disrespect our law enforcers and the criminal justice process.

Another mistake by the Duterte camp is the overestimation of their political capital. In the Philippines, political alliances can be fickle because they are often based more on convenience than on shared ideologies. Outside of Malacañang, you no longer have access to the vast resources of the government at your disposal. This results in compromised political capital.

Also, a characteristic of the status quo in Philippine politics is the constant search by the voters for new political figures or movements that better resonate with younger demographics or those desiring change. No single family has a monopoly on political savviness or heavy-handed ways; new ambitious politicians are bound to emerge. The Dutertes' popularity rating, while still high, may have long since peaked and is now declining.

The Duterte camp has also failed to grasp that the former president's heavy-handed approach to crime, while initially popular for its decisiveness, can come back to haunt them due to its long-term legal and human rights concerns. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” The Marcos administration apparently knows how to use this truism against the Dutertes.

Another mistake is the Duterte camp’s overreliance on social media as a propaganda strategy. Opposition groups and anti-Duterte vloggers have been gaining traction on social media for the past two years, thus leveling the playing field. Pro-Duterte vloggers no longer dominate the platform.