PHILIPPINES' WAR ON DRUGS
Violent
crackdown on drug-related crimes in the Philippines was one of the highlights
of the previous administration headed by former president Rodrigo Duterte. He
made known during his campaigns for the 2016 Philippine National Election his
unwavering support to the killings of drug-related criminals often in a populist
tone that arouses the emotional support from the people. Thus, his early
pronouncements were already a problem given that he is running for a top
position of the state. Pronouncements as such opened the doors for the public
to anticipate a normalization of an uglier breed of violence i.e., murder. A
state that uses violence (murder) for deterrence and not for penal purposes
spells a crisis of the state in its exercise of power and its authority.
An estimate of
12,000 Filipinos were killed in the drug war. And at least 2555 killings are
attributed to the Philippine National Police.[1]
These numbers tell us the horror of this war, and the horror is further raised
to the bar when innocent people are killed during the operations, worse,
children. The lives of the unintended targets are simply swept under the rug as
collateral damage while the lives of the intended targets are simply at the
state’s disposal. It has always been put forward by the state and its armed
instrument (police, military, or the “death squad”) that the killings happen in
legitimate encounters; however, eyewitness accounts have already contradicted
most of the claims as the killings happened in a summary execution style. The
bottom line is that murder is the state’s instrument in the imposition of its
will and ultimately, its authority. The implementers of this state-sponsored
killings such as the military and the police, has put to fore a justification
that such killings are morally justified and a means on how the state can
control its people.[2] Justifying
state-sponsored killing is a problem of moral reasoning.
One element
that further added to the dilemma was the rise of populism in the political
trend around the globe. The Philippines through Rodrigo Duterte, before and
during presidency, has banked on the huge amount of support it has from the
people. Although many angles to this populist trend can be extracted such as
poor education, a pervading Filipino family-oriented culture, economic
situation, and a continuous barrage of propaganda, all these shaped
(manufactured) the consciousness of the Filipinos making their cry and concern
over drugs as an evil (on a pedestal) to be dealt with through an iron fist. Rodrigo
Duterte has the highest approval ratings than any Philippine president in
history fluctuating from 60% to 90% [3]
which concludes his popularity among the Filipinos.[4]
Given his popularity and even being the willing individual to tag along the
clamor from the people getting tired of the drug problem, this is simply
reinforcing legitimacy to a questionable action such as the war on drugs.
This
was the core situation of the Philippines during 2016 – 2022 and with effects
still felt by all people especially to those who were victims. Even though that
Philippines withdrew from the International Criminal Court last 2017,[5]
the ICC can still have trials to the crimes committed while it was a member state.[6]
With an ever bigger organization looking into the drug war in legal terms, I am
looking into these three specific situations propped up during the War on Drugs:
a) a state that uses murder as a instrument of violence, b) a seeming moral
justification for the killings, and c) the peculiar power from populism. All
these situations will be put into an analysis through Paul Ricoeur’s Socio-Political
philosophy.
THE PROBLEM OF THE MORAL JUSTIFICATION
FROM STATE ACTORS
THE STATE AND ITS AUTHORITY
The
state is an institution that came about as a necessary mediator between
different people exhibiting their respective freedoms. Freedoms in the first
and second person needs an intermediary because possible frictions to differing
manifestations of freedom can occur when humanity is left to interact without a
middle entity; thus, without the intermediary, wars and slavery will continue
to occur.[7]
The
state having been bestowed the authority to rule means that the state tries its
best to regulate the freedoms of every individual. Norms are raised into a
level of imperatives of which the state has at its disposal to initiate the command
for its constituents to obey.[8]
The eventuality of norms (that is freedom in the face with another) becoming
obligations (ultimate promulgated as laws) is not enough between the persons as
somebody or something must compel both persons to act accordingly and the
failure of such can lead to punishment. This compelling nature of the state in
its command stems from its authority and the people who are to obey such pay credence
to the state as it “deserves” its creditability.[9]
Furthermore,
the state has violence as its disposal to ensure that its authority is made
known to the people; more so, that it is the way to impose its will and the collective
credence of the people under it. Violence has to be at best limited to penal in
character as any form of violence that uses murder erodes the fundamental
freedoms the people have. How can freedom be exercised if one is dead? Also, state
sanctioned murders are already opening the door for the rise of what Ricoeur
calls the “conscientious objectors.” Violence that is penal in character is the
minimal harm[10]
and promises to open for a humane negotiability between those who fall short of
the laws and the state.
If
the state acts accordingly, that is respecting the core freedoms of the individuals
in a fair manner without resorting to violence other that its penal nature,
order can be expected within the state. Maintenance of order must be a constant
struggle within the state and the people to uphold the laws and impose violence
on the offenders. This mutuality among the state and its people is not a static
reality or a fulfillment of a utopia; rather, it is a continued relation and
enactment of consent and coordination of all participants.[11]
“[Thus], order is not something tranquil and absolutely stable; order vibrates;
‘order’ is a ‘power’.”[12]
This
exhibition of power and authority from the state is the peak of its function as
the culmination of different wills and freedoms of the constituents. Thus, a
state can wield such coming from the consent of the subjects while having a penal
arm to enforce its laws while maintaining the flourishing of freedom among
individuals. The Philippines during the implementation of the War on Drugs is
exhibiting the state in its crisis.
“STATE
SANCTIONED” MURDERS CANNOT BE AN ETHIC OF LOVE
The
War on Drugs has used murder to enforce order. Law enforcement here poses a problem
since killing as a punishment is not even enshrined in the Philippine Constitution
and under the Revised Penal Code. Thus, it is safe to say that the objective of
the drug war was not to uphold the law but to pursue order at the very least. Even
though that a certain reevaluation of the laws is inevitable, reevaluation of the
law still bears to what Ricoeur calls the “evangelical aim”. This evangelical
aim is anchored on the mutual respect that each person has acceptable liberties
and that those too, respect the freedoms of every individual.[13]
This war on drugs should not be treated as a radical disorientation as there is
no rationality to an adjustment of an action or deed (being related to drug
crimes) that stems from fear not anchored on “loving thy neighbor”. Thus,
floating narratives on the need to change or take the law into the president’s
or the will of people’s hand is anchored on problematic exercise of state power
which a) killing as a means to enforce order, and b) on a hypothetical note, even
if all drug related crimes have been resolved due to killings, the option to
kill is still present even if there is no commitment of the said crimes anymore
when it has proven to be a successful deterrent. A murderous state cannot
uphold the ethics of love as this form of love is non-resistant[14]
i.e., a strong leaning to forgiveness but also to correcting behaviors.
The
ethics of love is a major component in Ricoeur’s thoughts wherein he mentions
Paul referring to the Sermon on the Mount. The sermon was preaching a love that
forgives and gives no harm as a form of retribution. Yet, Paul is aware that a
magistrate (such as a state) can enact penal violence anchored on justice.[15]
Even though that the implementation of penal violence still defeats the ethics
of love as it is simply returning an evil for an evil, at bare minimum, murder was
not an exacting measure towards a wrongdoing. Maybe it is high time that the
Philippine correctional facilities do have a robust and extensive program for
correction and rehabilitation so as to allow humans a second chance in life as
this is an ethic of love at play. The goal is to let wrongdoers reintegrate into
society by following still its rules and bearing mutual respect for others.[16]
The Philippines should have been humane in their approach to drug-related crimes to still be the magistrate the punishes through justice.[17] Let the Philippine laws function accordingly; however, let it be as well that the administration will address structural problems to avoid tackling the drug problem in a desperate iron hand rule that will inevitably use murder as an instrument of enforcement. If Paul warned the early Christians not to be anarchistic towards the government during their time out of conscience,[18] the same can be said towards the state to bear conscience in its exercise of state power to avoid its own demise coming from a growing number of conscientious objectors.
PECULIAR
POWER OF THE POPULIST
Strong
and tough-talking leaders oftentimes conjure the best of populist rhetoric by simply
dividing the people to an “us” vs. “them” situation.[19]
Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency inadvertently created this group identification
when the people simply resorted to us-against-them scenario of which
pro-administration followers, even in the grassroots, are noisy and made it easy
for them segregate people. Populism and its followers carry a potentially
dangerous power, as a majority always have a sweeping voice in the public let
alone become the voice that legitimizes what their idol does.
Recognition
and affirmation coming from the great amount of people can wield political
leverage as it has the tendency to legitimize whatever they have come up to. Populism
is this ugly twin head of democracy wherein we need to certainly distinguish
from one being ruled by a mob, and the other by citizens. Yet, when this mob
tend to be organized, power remains. Ricoeur cited Arendt that: “Power corresponds
to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the
property of an individual; it belongs to the group, and it remains in existence
only so long as the group keeps together. . .”[20]
And when the mob clamors for blood to spilled in the name of maintaining order,
then that power wields weight as it aims to express itself as a manifestation
of the state in the exercise of its authority. Tag that along with a head of
state that supports such then such power wields leverage.
The
rise of the mob is certainly a game changer as it affects the dynamics of the
state as it functions. More so, the danger is historically proven a lot of
times. Hannah Arendt made clear that this formation of the mob at large enables
totalitarian regimes to exist. “Totalitarian movements are possible where there
are masses who for one reason or another have acquired the appetite for political
organization.”[21]
Although Ricoeur has ruled out the likes of the totalitarian state when writing
the section on State and Violence, one cannot just ignore how a regime supported
by the people shows a peculiar breed of power. And such power dangerously
legitimizes pronouncements more so when it pronounces the death of the other;
thus, this power is capable in bringing about violence.
As what was mentioned previously, the former President Rodrigo Duterte enjoyed a popular rating significantly higher from those of other previous presidents. This rating, once spread publicly, creates a climate of approval from the majority of which legitimizes his methods in the drug war. However, no matter how the masses gain enough power to legitimize state sanctioned murder, it still fails on the ethics of love. No majority can rule out the ethics of love as this is the fundamental ethos humans interact with in respect of the fundamental freedoms each has. This power from the mob is already contestable to its core as it cheers for the state to go about its murder. And its this same mob who cries “foul” when they are at the receiving end of their pronouncements (reciprocity).
VERDICT
The Philippine war on drugs reflects a state in
crisis. The crisis lies in the problematic power a mob has to support and
enable a climate of killings, and the state itself resorting to murder as an instrument
of violence bereft of the name of law but more on a desperate means to achieve
order. Conscientious objectors intensified their calls against the war on drugs
as a citizen cannot just approve the murder instrument used by the state;
however, it has not yet reached to the point that Ricoeur is warry of i.e., when
the objectors will use the same violence against the state.
The
mob too, is problematic as they are simply the magnification of the fallible
man who is caught in the extreme end of feeling without objectivizing i.e., to appropriately
deliberate on the occurrence of the drug problem that can still fulfil the
freedoms of every person; thus, “knowing and feeling [has to] go together.”[22]
The mob’s power is simply amplified through gut feels of which its pronouncements
on murder has already crossed the minimum violence a state can do for the best
of its constituents. A predominantly Christian Philippines needs to simply tap
its Christian roots and reflect on the ethics of love while maintaining the
magistrate (state) in its exercise of authority.
[1] “Philippines’ War of Drugs”, Human Rights Watch, accessed December 15, 2022, https://www.hrw.org/tag/philippines-war-drugs
[2]
Johnson, David & Fernquest, Jon, “Governing through Killing: The War on
Drugs in the Philippines”, Asian Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 5,
Issue 2, (May 2018): 359. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2018.12
[3]
Sarao, Zacarian, “Duterte has Drawn High Ratings from 2016 to 2022 – Pulse Asia”,
Philippine Daily Inquirer, accessed December 16, 2022, https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1618628/duterte-enjoyed-generally-high-ratings-since-2016-pulse-asia
[4] I will assume the ratings to be true and valid regardless of any challenge put forward by some concerned agencies regarding data representation and extraction process. The assumption is widely backed on how the grassroots speak proudly of Rodrigo Duterte as an effective leader in combatting the illegal drug problem. Thus, ratings shown is the fact that I carry of him being popular among the people of which I will later analyze using Ricoeur’s view on power.
[5] Gutierrez, Jason, “Philippines Officially Leaves the International Criminal Court”, The New York Times, accessed December 16, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/17/world/asia/philippines-international-criminal-court.html
[6] Singh, Param-Preet, “Philippines Pullout from ICC Won’t Block Justice for ‘Drug War’, Human Rights Watch, accessed December 16, 2022, https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/18/philippines-pullout-icc-wont-block-justice-drug-war
[7] Ricoeur, Paul, “The Problem on the Foundation of Moral Philosophy”, Philosophy Today, 22:3, (1978: Fall) p. 178
[8] Ibid., 186
[9]
Ricoeur, Paul, History and Truth, trans. by Charles A. Kelbley (Illinois:
Northwestern University Press, 1965) 92 – 93.
[10] Ibid., 234
[11] Ricoeur, Paul, “Power and Violence”, Theory, Culture, & Society, Vol 27, (2010): p. 18
[12] Ricoeur, Paul, History and Truth, trans. by Charles A. Kelbley (Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1965) 240
[13]
Ricoeur, Paul, “The Problem on the Foundation of Moral Philosophy”, Philosophy
Today, 22:3, (1978: Fall) p. 190
[14] Ricoeur, Paul, History and Truth, trans. by Charles A. Kelbley (Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1965) 238
[15] Ibid., 237
[16] It is easy to long for a change from the wrongdoer especially in this case, a drug-related crime (distribution, selling, and or using) given the fact that there are means to address the behavior. However, if a drug-related crime includes murder, it would be a different story if we are looking into the fact of death of the victim and experience of bereavement from his or her immediate family and friends. The death of the victim is already the cessation of the fundamental exercise of freedom; yet an ethics of love offers a radical reply to the murderer through forgiveness. Now this forgiveness should still be anchored on justice and humans as we are, we allow the emotion of the bereaved to yearn for something coequally exacting such as death to the murderer as an emotive episode of shock and anger.
[17] True and proven self-defense bears no problem when killing is done by a law enforcer doing his or her duty as this is acceptable given the circumstance if all humane procedures (still respecting the freedoms of individuals) are still followed. The problem lies in fabricated stories of self-defense as if this act is lie, then the intentionality to kill is indubitably present from the law enforcer’s side.
[18] Ricoeur, Paul, History and Truth, trans. by Charles A. Kelbley (Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1965) 236
[19] Bremmer, Ian, “The ‘Strongmen Era’ is Here. Here is What It Means for You”, Time, accessed December 2016, https://time.com/5264170/the-strongmen-era-is-here-heres-what-it-means-for-you/
[20] Ricoeur, Paul, “Power and Violence”, Theory, Culture, & Society, Vol 27, (2010): p. 20
[21]
Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism, (New York: Harcourt Inc,
1968) 311
[22]
Ricoeur, Paul, Philosophical Anthropology: Writings and Lectures, Volume 3,
ed. by Johan Michel & Jerome Poree trans. by David Pellauer, (Cambridge:
Polity Press, 2016) 16
Comments
Post a Comment