Violence, Human Rights, and Democracy in the Philippines

Violence constitutes the focal point of this project as it is one of the most defining discussions that erupted since the 2016 presidential elections. Violence—and the explicit call for violence—has been one of the main campaign platforms of the current administration. Moreover, the excessive use of violence through the war on drugs and extrajudicial killings has been one of the main features of the Duterte regime. Clearly, a climate of impunity, fear, and intimidation has been introduced, which not only affects different arenas of state governance, but also permeates everyday social relations. Considering the omnipresence of violence, this is a crucial research parameter to critically engage with. We are aware that what constitutes violence is subject to rich and important philosophical debate and discussion. Whilst acknowledging the complexity of the term “violence,” at this very moment however, we do not immediately wish to engage with these discussions and depart from a rather straightforward interpretation, that can always be enriched in a later stage. More specifically, within the confines of this project we wish to discuss direct physical violence against humans and the multiple threats and intimidations to inflict this physical violence. As such, research projects can be included tackling the rhetoric and performative quality of violence, discourses of violence, violence against women, threats and intimidations in cyberspace, etc.

The occurrence of the ongoing violence and the war against drugs cannot be separated from the observation that the current administration holds a credible democratic mandate and that Duterte has been elected by 39 percent of the Philippine voters. This puts forward a whole range of questions that concern the nature, limitations, and prospects of democracy, not only in the Philippines but also across the globe. A first question concerns the meaning of this observation about the state of democracy in the Philippines and the significance as well as legacy of the post-1986 democratic turn. One must take note that Duterte’s entry into politics was ushered in by this watershed event. For the next three decades, Duterte consolidated his rule in Davao City via a political dynasty that trafficked in vigilantism and alleged illicit activities as he developed a modus vivendi with other anti-statal forces in the region. He made Davao City “progressive” as he observed the procedural trappings of an electoral democracy while strategically consolidating a network that is made common by reliance on violence and patronage to further its cause. In Duterte’s campaign for the presidency, Davao City, the locality underpinned by these undemocratic tendencies, was held up as an example of what he can accomplish. Is Duterte then the potent underside of the post-EDSA republic? 

Once in office, the Duterte administration lost no time in capitalizing  on its legitimate and democratic mandate to reshape the democratic institutions of the country. Most notable for its ferocity and sheer violence is the war on drugs. This campaign created a subhuman other, the drug user, whose annihilation must be achieved if the republic was to remain safe and in order. Is the targeted use of violence, extrajudicial killings, and human rights violations buttressed by this democratic mandate? If a democratic mandate can be made to justify the state’s assault on basic human rights, for how long can that state sustain its democratic credentials before becoming decidedly authoritarian? What kind of resistance and opposition will such state yield?