Philippine Presidents Imperil Democracy

By Henry Srebrnik, [Saint John, NB] Telegraph-Journal

Among the presidential systems in Southeast Asia, the Philippines has the oldest one in the region.It has been an independent state since 1946.

Philippine presidents have usually dominated other branches of government and their hegemonic position led to the collapse of democracy there several decades ago and periodic instability since then. 

The Ferdinand Marcos and Rodrigo Duterte presidencies, in particular, demonstrate the dangers.

Marcos, elected in 1965, declared martial law in 1972, with authoritarian rule lasting until his overthrow in 1986. With his wife Imelda, his autocratic regime, based on widespread favoritism, eventually led to economic stagnation and recurring reports of human rights violations.

After free and fair elections were restored following his ouster, there were several periods of instability but Philippine democracy again faces a major challenge under the current leadership of Duterte.

He has already proved to be dangerous by undermining political checks and balances.

Duterte’s “war on drugs,” launched after he took office in 2016, has claimed an estimated 12,000 lives of primarily poor urban dwellers, including children. He has vowed to continue the anti-drug campaign until his term ends in 2022.

He also repeatedly subjected United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings Agnes Callamard to profanity-laced ridicule for her repeated efforts to secure an official visit to the Philippines.

A prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in the Hague in February started a preliminary examination into a complaint accusing Duterte and at least 11 officials of crimes against humanity.

On May 6 Duterte threatened to resort to emergency powers and enforce them “to the hilt” to deal with relentless criticism over his human rights record, crimes and government wrongdoing. He is already harassing dissenting voices in the country’s media.

The Philippines, not surprisingly, given its Spanish colonial history, is similar in its political culture to many Latin American countries. 

Presidents consider themselves entitled to rule as they see fit, constrained only by their term of office. Some scholars have referred to this as “hyper-presidentialism.” 

How could it be otherwise for somebody who claims to embody the whole of the nation? In this view, other institutions are nuisances. Accountability to courts and parliaments seem a mere impediment to the full authority that the president has been elected to exercise.

Philippine parties are quite weak and lack strong societal roots or clear party platforms. They are electoral vehicles which employ clientelist ties rather than programmatic appeals to win voters’ support. 

Also, patronage controlled by the president usually insures strong congressional majorities for the incumbent. So weak parties help avoid the gridlock which makes presidentialism elsewhere perilous.

Presidents in the Philippines’ “hyper-presidential” system are equipped with massive formal and informal powers. Their hegemonic position has enabled power hungry chief executives like Marcos and Duterte to undermine even the even weak checks and balances in the Philippine political system.