“The best fortress which a prince can possess is the affection of his people.” –Niccolò Machiavelli, “The Prince”
The last time I spoke with a friend in Cebu, he mentioned how people were celebrating Sinulog; blind to the chaos of killings and persecutions happening all around them. He called them “hypocrites.” They don’t care about political abuses and are blinded by the euphoria of the festival – they have become individualistic, he said (this coming from a proud “bisdak” and supporter of President Rodrigo Duterte).
Based on data, history, economic principle, and the experiences of other countries, a war on drugs cannot be won. Even the most powerful nation, the United States, has not succeeded in eradicating drugs since the time of former President Richard Nixon, who considered drugs “Public Enemy No. 1.”
Despite the glaring number of casualties recorded under the Duterte regime, however, according to Pulse Asia surveys, the war on drugs is still considered a “top achievement.” It is the very reason the public continues to support and admire the president – the promise of a “drug-free and safer Philippines,” which was the failure of EDSA’s promised democracy. It is also a reflection of the public’s lost confidence in state institutions, including the judicial system.
Such a situation feeds into the frustration with the government’s inability to provide basic security – which, incidentally, is what led to the demand for new leadership, particularly, one that would take decisive action and provide reliable protections. In addition, those in positions of authority have since joined the fray and are using the war on drugs to advance their political power. Last year, the media reported the war on drug claimed the lives of 12 mayors and seven vice mayors. There were also the killings of priests, suspected drug personalities, and human rights activists – most of which involved illegal drugs, accused drug lords, sympathizers, or political rivals.
During his campaign for president, Duterte said, “My God, I hate drugs,” followed by, “I will kill more if only to get rid of drugs.” The statement suggested drugs were a threat to national development and progress. According to the Copenhagen School approach on security studies, this phenomenon is called securitization. The method becomes successful if the target audience, such as the public, accepts the claims.
The president set the stage for securitization and politicians are benefitting from it in their ability to kill rivals, assume their positions, and blame it on drugs.
Last December, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) revealed the names of suspected “narco-politicians.” According to DILG Secretary Eduardo Año, the list includes mayors, vice governors, members of congress, and municipal councilors – most of whom are running in the midterm elections. The cabinet official believes the list will serve as a guide for the public to vote for “better” candidates. However, it can also be used to weaponize the war on drugs to attack opponents – among the slain politicians, most of them were affiliated with the Liberal Party.
This mass innuendo continues to suggest the country is on the brink of becoming a narco-state and the president believes such problems lie with politicians, which compels politicians to believe joining the campaign against drugs is equivalent to reducing the prevalence of illegal drugs in the country.
This weaponization has led to one conclusion, the targeting of opposition to ensure political capital and establish the president’s “national boss rule.”
***
Comments are welcome at sensei.adorador@chmsc.edu.ph./WDJ