A president bragging about personally killing criminal suspects and waving a gun while holding public office remains one of the Philippines’ most beloved rulers to date—Rodrigo “Roa” Duterte. His paternalistic concern for the nation earned him the endearing nickname “Tatay Digong” (Daddy Digong), while simultaneously being labeled as the “Punisher” for his strict dealings with rowdy, disobedient citizens. This research article will attempt to comprehend such seemingly conflicting titles through the populist strategies adopted by Duterte, highlighting how he organized the populism in the Philippines in order to personalize the nation’s narrative to suit his individual agenda under the guise of “fixing the nation.”
Populist mobilization is described as a “political means that can be undertaken…..in pursuit of a wide range of social, political, and economic agendas……..populism should be understood as a flexible way of animating political support,” whereas populism on its own is a vague concept with an extremely narrow definition.
Robert S. Jansen defines populism as inciting political mobilization through a populist rhetoric while Cas Mudde defines it as an exclusionary strategy that separates society into two opposing categories of “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite” on moral grounds. To highlight the variability of the definition, President Duterte certainly incited a populist mobilization through his rhetoric and adopted a horrifyingly exclusionary policy of “othering” in the Philippines. However, his main targets were the drug addicts, the liberals, and the human rights activists, instead of just the elites. He did claim to oppose the establishment and the “Manila elite,” but he simply blamed the establishment for his failures while leaning on the political structure and the weak institutions of the Philippines to maintain his autocratic rule.
Populism is a political strategy, a practical methodology to personalize the society to completely support the autocrat’s absolute will. It is not just a set of ideas to be adopted by the populist leader, instead, it is a tactic that allows the populist leader to define the people and the enemy as they desire, based on a personal agenda. The power of populism authorizes the leader to mold the people, especially the supporters, according to a personal narrative. Such a powerful approach cannot be confined to a single definition hence, it can be concluded that the definition of populism has evolved through the generations, and each one of them is relevant to Duterte’s macho populism in the Philippines. This research article will attempt to outline how the President of the Philippines was able to successfully impose an autocratic rule through populist rhetoric which resonated with the Filipinos, allowing him to personalize the mobilization of his supporters.
Us vs. Them
As highlighted by David Camroux, Duterte adopted an exclusionary policy at the bottom, instead of the top. He targeted drug addicts and criminals and rendered them pariahs while presenting himself, the top figure in the Philippines’ political structure, as relatable. Legitimizing the latent anxieties of an ordinary Filipino, alongside his use of “street language” and “bad manners” in public made Duterte appear close to the public; a true father of the nation, one of the people. This was one of the populist tactics employed by Duterte which also finds its academic foundations in the second-generation definition of populism as quoted by Jansen: “What is so compelling about populist discourse to those who support populist politicians? This approach focused on the production and reception—and most of all the content—of the personalities, propaganda, and speeches of populist leaders.”
Latent anxieties are the mundane, everyday concerns of the people which allow for dinner table conversations, not for debate in the Parliament. Duterte transformed the issue of illegal narcotics and addiction into a national scandal through exaggeration, as illegal drug use involves less than 2% of the Philippines’ population according to the government’s own Dangerous Drug Board. However, the dangers of drug addicts and their criminal activities were a regular topic in the Philippines and many people considered themselves directly impacted or threatened by drug addicts hence, Duterte’s “War on Drugs” gained traction amongst the Filipinos who felt represented and acknowledged.
Such a violent otherization evoked emotions of anger and a desire for immediate action within the population, and Duterte complied with mass killings of “the enemy,” the suspected drug addicts and criminals who posed a danger to the “pure” people who chose morality. Thus, it can be seen that his roles of “Father” and “Punisher” are not contradictory, in fact, they are complementary. Both of these roles were exhibited during his war on drugs as he personalized society and the mobilization from within. He chose the enemy of the people and was the one who instructed and inspired action against the antagonist both online and on the ground.
Secondly, his use of explicit language and bold gestures, such as kissing a migrant Filipino woman publicly, made him more relatable to the people, as he appeared to reject silly Western formalities of political correctness in favor of immediate, drastic, practical action to counter the problems in the country. His “street language” was a way of removing himself from the perceived political elite that dominated the democratic arena of the Philippines, even though he himself served as the Mayor of Davao. He separated himself from the elite by blaming the establishment for his failures and resonated with the people who desired change.
Populism is considered to have foundations purely in the people and their interests, as noted by Cas Mudd. However, it is rarely considered that the interests of the people are defined by the populist leader in question who presents themselves as the solution. Duterte presented himself as the only solution to the Philippines’ problems by referring to his critics and opponents as homosexuals, implying that they were too weak and cowardly to understand, let alone appreciate, his practical and firm approach. So, the “I” factor in populism is almost as strong as the “us vs. them” factor. Through his language and relatability, Duterte presented the “I” as part of “us” as well, allowing his populism to justify his brutal and autocratic rule. He threatened the Pope and cursed Obama even before he was elected, acting as a spokesperson for the ordinary population.
“Duterte used vulgar language to lay bare the hypocrisies of Ivy-League educated politicians and the Catholic Church for defending human rights while leaving many Filipinos hungry and unsafe. (These) outbursts do not diminish his authority but rather reinforce his outsider status, upon which his authority is built.”
– Dictators And Autocrat: Securing Power Across Global Politics edited by Klaus Larres, Chapter 22
“Rodrigo Duterte: macho populism and authoritarian practice (born 1945)” by Nicole Curato and Yvan Ysmael Yonaha
Personalizing the Rhetoric of Authoritarian Populism
Furthermore, his vulgar language also translated into sexism, building upon the existing sexist notions in Philippine politics. It is clear that Duterte tactically handpicked aspects from the Philippines’ political, economic, and social order to personalize his reign by constructing his supporters’ opinions, perceptions, and actions. He openly admitted his weakness for women, acknowledged his affairs with his mistresses, while his predecessors had left such rumors unaddressed, and used rape imagery in his war against drugs, projecting criminals as rapists who would dishonor women and thus, the country. He became the champion of ordinary male desires which the globalised Western liberalism and feminism-based values had ordered to suppress. This presents Duterte as “wearing his heart on his sleeve” and laying himself bare in front of his country, achieving complete acceptance from the population, further allowing him to mold his country according to his wishes.
Such sexist language was also a strategy to reduce the political legitimacy of his opponents while legitimizing his own policies. The rape imagery validated his war on drugs in the eyes of the public, presenting him as the necessary protective patriarch of the nation. “This protector is courageous and self-sacrificing and watches over the safety of his family. In return for this protection, the members of the family cede power to their protector.”
Alternatively, publicly teasing his opponents through sexist jokes about their appearance, opinions, and habits turned them into a farce—easily dismissive and irrelevant, while trapping them in a dilemma. If they countered his disgusting quips, they would be labeled “feminist killjoys” who could not handle jokes, whilst their silence would be a sign of Duterte’s dominance and power over them. Since populism requires the invocation of a crisis, utilizing the sexist roots within the Philippines’ society allowed Duterte to present himself as the only viable option to counter the crises in the eyes of the people, gaining absolute legitimacy. This represents the strength of populism as a political strategy, where it allowed Duterte to vocalize his sexual desires which, ironically, further strengthened his rule and general appeal as “he connected intimately and instantaneously with supporters, in a way which is perceived as honest and unfiltered.”
Interestingly, sexism also allowed him to expose the hypocrisies of the West. When he received criticism from Australia for his sickening remarks on the gang rape and murder of an Australian national in the Philippines, and upon being condemned by the US and other international actors and organizations for his orders to shoot opposing women soldiers in their genitals, he highlighted how Western soldiers exploited women on foreign soil as well. So, through sexism, he turned the dialogue into an East vs. West issue, altering the perception of state and international relations within the Philippines and his supporters.
“Duterte’s reduction of international disputes into a conflict between himself and other men leads to a distorted view of the state. His constituency is primed to expect international relations to be conducted by “men,” rather than states, in a way that privileges masculine impulses such as pride, aggression, and competition.” However, he has been able to counter his feminist and liberal critics through his work on women’s advancement, especially during his time as the Mayor of Davao. His blatant sexism was reduced to a myth through his commitments to improving maternal healthcare provisions, support for victims of domestic violence, and allowing access to female contraceptives.
Davao was also one of the first Gender and Development Local Learning Hubs certified by the Philippine Commission on Women, and also banned the swimsuit segment in the local beauty pageants, alongside establishing an effective hotline for domestic violence victims. However, it must be noted that his concern for women appears to stretch only as far as they stick to their culturally defined roles of motherhood and obedient wives and citizens; “if populists want to become politically relevant, they will have to define the people in terms of some of the key features of the self-identification of the targeted community.”
Again, Duterte simultaneously confined the women to his personal beliefs, while gaining legitimacy and countering opponents, displaying the power of populism as a tool to personalize an entire nation.
Playing the System – Populism in The Philippines
Another reason why Duterte was able to invoke such a massive populist agenda in the Philippines is because of the institutional and political structure of the country. Populist leaders have a blatant disregard for the institutional structures of their country and consider themselves above the law, so Duterte’s habit of replacing judges and threatening reporters, lawyers, judges, and opponents with valid concerns and critiques over his governance, alongside using state institutions of military, police, and courts to suppress any opposition and for his aggressive policies, such as the “War on Drugs,” is synonymous to the characterization of populist leaders. Furthermore, Filipinos are considered to have a habit of installing autocratic and populist leaders due to their lack of faith and belief in their own democratic institutions. The rise of a populist leader is “considered a disruption of the Philippines’ elite democracy……(which) has long been controlled by anarchy of families. Instead of being a forum for political parties competing for power, elections in the Philippines are a mechanism for moderating intra-elite and inter-family competition.” This is in sync with the third-generation definition of populism, “populism is a symptom of weak democratic incorporation—that individuals follow populist leaders when they are not firmly incorporated into political life through strong and stable political parties.”
Duterte appealed mostly to the middle class and the migrant workers, instead of the lower classes, in contrast to the general definitions of populism. He promised to end predatory and monopolistic practices of companies. This fits in the first-generation definition of populism, as highlighted by Jansen, as “they attempted to discover the developmental conditions……..of defining populism in social terms, rooted in relations of production and market conditions.” The political structure of the Philippines is poised in a manner to support and prefer a “strongman rule,” and Duterte, through his image as a benevolent, paternalistic, strict, and punitive figure perfectly represented both the institutional and social wishes.
In conclusion, the populist mobilization through a populist rhetoric generated by Duterte in the Philippines was extremely effective through a populist lens. Duterte, through his “larger than life” persona and macho populism, managed to personalize the mass mobilization, choosing the enemy for his state and instructing the actions and even perceptions of his supporters in a democracy is an ode to the power of populism. The mass/populist mobilization mostly remained confined to online trolling and debating, attending rallies, chiming in support of Duterte’s policies, contributing to favorable survey statistics, and voting for him. There was hardly any independent movement displayed by Duterte’s supporters, allowing him to stay true to his nickname of “Tatay Digong,” the extreme instructor who knows best.
Minimal independent thought and movement is the goal of a populist mobilization to begin with, allowing the populist leader complete autocratic control within a democracy. Through his openness, he managed to gain absolute acceptance, especially regarding his personal life and opinions, from the population. A feat few politicians manage to achieve. Through clever populist rhetoric, Rodrigo Duterte managed to personalize the mobilization within the Philippines and rule with almost a divine right, completely unchallenged and unbothered.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Hareem Hassan Khan is a 2024 LUMS graduate with a degree of BSc (Hons). Economics and Political Science with a particular interest in development economics and international relations. She works as a research assistant at LUMS and hopes to contribute to the development of society however possible.