ON MAY 11, after a long and arduous process of election rallies, massive black propaganda thrown left and right, and a heated word war on-and-offline, Manuel “Mar” Roxas II won the 2016 Philippine National Elections. It was a difficult win–and yet a deserved one. This country finally had the kind of president it thinks it needs, and one that holds great promise to lead it to even greater heights.
And yet that never happened.
It is a temptingly attractive thought to ponder on though, amidst the current “war” on drugs, the increasingly, seemingly difficult diplomatic situation, and the threat to the democracy that one Rodrigo Duterte presents to our motherland today.
So, what if Mar Roxas won as our president?
In Roxas’ acceptance speech for his nomination by the Liberal Party to run as president, Roxas vowed that he would continue the “Daang Matuwid” policy of Benigno Aquino III. “The ‘Daang Matuwid’ is about the dreams of every Filipino,” he said.
In his campaign electoral platforms, the only mention of a drug problem is that of the procurement and pricing of legal drugs. In response to Duterte’s promise of a war on drugs, he emphasized that such a war is a futile one. Based on the experiences of other countries–United States of America in 1970s, Colombia in the 1980s, and more recently Mexico in 2006–such a tirade would only result in massive loss of lives, both of those involved in the drug trade and use and innocent ones.
If Mar Roxas won, there wouldn’t be unjustified and reckless extra-judicial killings related to the drug war all over the country. The solutions to the “perceived” drug problem would be strengthening of ongoing efforts, and perhaps even a reevaluation whether or not they are effective.
But while it’s too early to tell if Duterte’s war on drugs will work, one still has to wonder if the Philippines’ drug problem would ever be revealed.
Would the key strategic position of the country in the global drug trade be widely recognized? Would the current drug addicts be given attention, and even just a legitimate chance, to surrender for rehabilitation? Would there be an active discourse on actionable policies for the curbing of drug pushing and using amongst the islands? Would the Filipino people be asked to stop and rethink whether a drug addict is a criminal or not?
As an alternative to Duterte’s reputation of a “Dirty Harry”, the Liberal Party pushed Mar Roxas as the “disente” choice in the presidential bid.
Duterte’s foul mouth has already caused him trouble even before he won, especially with his “cursing” at Pope Francis and his remarks on the raping of an Australian missionary that ruffled some feathers of the international community.
To be “disente” meant to be respectful, educated in responding to questions, and insightful in asking new ones. Roxas responded to Duterte’s remark saying that women ought to be respected and not to be misrepresented as merely objects vying for men’s’ attention. He earned the ears of many in the international community, who were especially worried that with Duterte’s rough mouth he will further damage relationships with key allies especially the United States. In the goal of continuing the “Daang Matuwid”, Roxas even emphasized that improving international relations is a key point that he will address during his term.
But the concerns and fears about Duterte’s mouth did play out. Since he won, he has made some judicious remarks against personalities in other nations–calling an ambassador’s son gay, and allegedly calling out US President Obama as a “son of a bitch”. This has prompted the international community, especially the press, to respond through press statements and long-form articles on the dangers of a “Duterte Harry”.
If Mar Roxas won, there wouldn’t be unnecessary and potentially harmful messages coming from the presidential office. The Presidential Communications Office wouldn’t need to contextualize what the president really means. Relationships with the United States would be respected, and perhaps even the dispute on the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea would be addressed through other means than allying with China.
But then again, one has to wonder if the Philippines’ diplomatic foreign policy would ever be scrutinized once again with such voracity.
Would there be discussions whether or not foreign aid to the country are used as political leverage in diplomatic communications? Would the topic of the Philippines’ alleged subjugation by the United States be reemphasized in the news? Would the country still be reevaluated and given the chance to develop a truly independent foreign policy?
The first Edsa People Power Revolution led us from a 21-year-long Marcos supremacy into a well-deserved democracy. The consequent constitution that was ratified into law was a solid response to the abuses that were allowed in the old one, and even emphasized more on freedom principles and ideologies.
Mar Roxas, not only by his affiliations with the Liberal Party and personal endorsement by Aquino but also by his personal beliefs, emphasized in his campaign that he is committed to these same democratic principles and ideologies. He even went as far to say that a Duterte presidency would be a step back in terms of democratic freedom, and added that such a term would mean going back to the darkest years of the Marcos administration.
That bold prediction still hasn’t come to pass. But when Duterte placed the country in a State of Lawlessness after the Davao City Roxas Night Market bombing last September, many have feared that it would be the beginnings of another Martial Law.
If Mar Roxas won, there wouldn’t be such fears and murmurs of a new military rule in the country. The public image of the Philippines would remain to be a safe place, and one that cherishes freedom and democracy above all. The president wouldn’t be feared of breaking the mandates of the constitution, and perhaps the people would feel safer with him around.
But what really is a democracy, but a concerted and collaborative effort from all members of society to allow as much voices to be heard?
Would the Filipinos be as engaged in discussing national issues now more than ever? Would there be an insightful deliberation of the freedom that our citizens enjoy–of the press, of speech and of life? Would we be even invited to be critical collaborators with the government? Would we be ever given the chance to challenge the imperial thinking in the capital, and be allowed to push forward with ideals that come from the grassroots all over the country?
We won’t ever know what we gave up in exchange for this drug war, but suffice it to say that perhaps, we won’t really recognize the ailing and failures of the previous administrations in handling this national drug problem. We won’t ever know whether or not our international diplomatic situation would’ve improved or placed in a more precarious situation. And won’t still know whether or not the democracy that we Filipinos value the most would be violated and disrespected by the current administration.
But it’s not really a matter of asking whether or not we would choose to live in a Mar Roxas reality, or prefer the one we’re in. The question we need to ask is, what is currently happening? What should we fight for? And what can we do about it?
We could continue on imagining what would’ve happened, or we could simply stop typing on our phones and laptops and simply let go–and let live. (John Kevin N. Espino)