Mr Duterte, with his controversial views and soaring popularity, during the election campaign, attracted a lot of attention world-wide. He proposed proclamation of a "bloody war" against criminals, and protection of police officers cracking down on activists from human rights and corruption watchdogs. Hopefully, Mr Duterte's warning of closing down the legislature, if threatened with impeachment, is only campaign rhetoric. Donald Trump, the US presidential hopeful, made similar "politically incorrect" comments, such as building a wall to stop the illegal Mexican immigrants. Mr Duterte was described as Asia's Donald Trump.
Attention in India on the Philippine election has been very limited. Having lived in the Philippines for six years, I find it interesting to compare the politics of the Philippines with that in India.
More From This Section
First is politicians using vigilante groups in response to the perceived failures of government and gaining popular support. Vigilantism reflects an ambivalence regarding the authority of the state.
In the southern island of Mindanao, Davao, with a population of about 1.5 million, is the fourth largest city of the Philippines. As its seven-term mayor, Mr Duterte is known as "the Punisher" for his zero tolerance policies towards criminals. Reportedly, vigilante groups tied to Mr Duterte executed drug traffickers and criminals, and over a period of 20 years, turned Davao from the "murder capital" of the country to "the most peaceful city in southeast Asia." Like Harun al-Rashid, Mr Duterte used to go round at night supervising life in the city. Though criticised by human rights organisations for taking law into his own hands, his administration struck a sympathetic chord among many voters.
"The Punisher" in Davao reminds us of the midnight raid against three African women in Delhi's Khirki extension on the night of January 14, 2014. A criminal case was registered against the involved minister in Delhi government, but his popularity in the Malviya Nagar constituency went up from 32,258 votes in 2013 to 51,196 votes in 2015 election. His victory margin expanded from 7,772 to 15,897 votes. Of course, the difference is in the use of vigilantism by a future head of state and by a minister in a local government.
Second is the defiance of Duverger's Law, which posits that the first-past-the-post system of elections tends to favour a two-party system. In both countries, there is a plethora of parties. In the Indian republic, for the first 25 years, the Congress dominated the political scene with several smaller parties in the Opposition. A two-party system prevailed only for a short while when the Opposition parties came together under Janata Dal around the Emergency.
After independence from the US in 1946, for the first 25 years until President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial rule in 1972, the Philippines effectively had a two-party system. The president was either from the Nacionalista or the Liberal party. The Nacionalista, founded in 1907, is the oldest political party. The presidents elected from this party include Ramon Magsaysay with a famous award named after him, and Marcos. The Liberal party is a breakaway from the Nacionalista, in 1946. The stable two-party system broke down after 25 years.
Political activity, banned under martial law, resumed only before the April 1978 elections. But, it was fractured. Marcos's New Society Movement (Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, or KBL) won the election, amid charges of electoral fraud and boycott of voting by Opposition groups. Cohesion among Opposition parties came only to counter Marcos's onslaught on democracy, and disappeared shortly thereafter.
Like the Janata Dal around the Emergency in India, many Opposition parties came together under Benigno S Aquino, Jr, the current President Aquino's father and the leader of the People's Power Movement-Fight (Lakas ng Bayan-Laban) to form a coalition, the United Nationalist Democratic Organization (UNIDO), to fight Marcos. The UNIDO acquired the support of more parties after Benigno Aquino's murder in 1983. In the February 1986 snap election called by Marcos, UNIDO's presidential candidate was Benigno Aquino's widow and President Aquino's mother Corazon Aquino. Marcos was officially and fraudulently declared as the winner. Presidential Malacanang palace was stormed by the people. Marcos left for exile in Hawaii, and Corazon Aquino became the president.
Thereafter, the party scene got fractured again. Marcos's KBL broke up. Parties sprang up around individual or groups of leaders. The Philippines Commission on Elections lists 10 major parties, four additional parties with representation in Congress and about a dozen more parties with more than two per cent of the votes to have seats in Congress under the party-list system.
Third is the issue of political parties dominated by dynasties and the elite. With a number of leaders from the same family, politics in India is often described as dynastic. The Philippines is no different. Mr Duterte's family is not as prominent politically as his predecessor Mr Aquino's. Yet, Mr Duterte's father Vicente was the governor of the erstwhile Davao province. Political parties in the Philippines have been described as elite clubs, with parties forming around powerful individuals. A recent example from 2010 is Manny Pacquiao, the world boxing champion, forming his own party the People's Champ Movement to fight elections. Leaders produce parties, rather than parties producing leaders. Sounds familiar? Wonder whether the AIADMK produced Ms Jayalalithaa or she produced AIADMK? Or, TMC, Mamata Banerjee or Ms Banerjee, the TMC?
In India, 25 years of economic reforms has dented the worst aspects of crony capitalism and led to the emergence of a new middle class. In the Philippines, President Aquino has improved governance and pushed up the growth rate. But, the economy remains dominated by a small feudal oligarchy living in and around Makati at the heart of Manila. The question is what will Mr Duterte do? Since he is not part of the "Makati Consensus", he may attempt real reform. But the vested interests arrayed against him are formidable.
The writer is an economist