The acceleration and intensification of the politics of the superhero effect has truly been amazing
From the Inquirer
President Rodrigo Duterte early Saturday declared “a state of lawlessness” or “a state of lawless violence” to counter terrorism and strengthen the campaign against illegal-drug trade.
Speaking in a televised interview, he clarified “it’s not martial law but it would require nationwide, well-coordinated efforts of the military and the police.”
“I have this duty to protect the country. I have this duty to keep intact the integrity of the nation,” he added.
“There will be major checkpoints, curfews,” he said.
Around 4 a.m. Saturday, Duterte visited the site of the explosion at the Davao City night market that had left 14 dead and 67 wounded, based on the latest police reports.
My comments here will be predicated mostly from my previous notes.
When the government launched what seemed as conditioning of the public through assassination attempts at the leadership, I wrote, [War on Drugs: From Duterte’s Bounty to Alleged Counter Bounty. Death Penalty is a China Communist Model (June 11)]
One, if the administration has made this up, then they will be using drugs as a pretext to incite even more repression through violence. Or the government will use violence to justify the establishment of a dictatorship—all in the name of drugs. Drugs will serve as a false flag for Duterte's leftist ambitions.
Two, if the allegation is true, then the war on drugs would mean blood on the streets.
Violence will be bidirectional or a two way street. And violence will not just be about drugs but about repression, criminality and failure of law and order.
Has current events been bidirectional violence or a false flag?
Now if bidirectional violence…. Philippine Political Theater: The Deepening State of War: From War on Drugs to Mining to Oligarchy! (August 15)
This is not a matter of public opinion. Rather it is the principle of causality—cause and effect—that will eventually prevail.
The ultimate consequence of a prolonged state of war will be to breed and foster tyranny, as well as to sow the seeds of revolution and or terrorism.
From the economic perspective, it is easy to see why this kind policy is self-defeating.
And contrary to popular delusions, violence has not signified a modern or sophisticated efficacious recourse on promoting civilization, but instead this represents an appeal to the primal instinct of dominance.
Has barbaric policies resulted to locally fostered terrorism, thereby validating my prognosis?
State of Lawlessness as defined by the government
From the Inquirer (emphasis added)
LAW EXPERTS on Saturday said the people’s rights should not be affected by President Duterte’s declaration of a “state of lawlessness,” as it is limited to calling out the military to help the police suppress violence.
Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II stressed the constitutionality of the declaration, which came hours after an explosion killed 14 people and wounded 68 others at a night market in Mr. Duterte’s hometown, Davao City.
Mr. Duterte’s authority under the declaration is limited to summoning armed forces to suppress violence “through ordinary police action,” according to Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Rosario Setias-Reyes.
Aguirre said the declaration did not amount to an imposition of martial law. Instead, it was a “precautionary measure” that had factual basis in the explosion.
The slippery slope of state of Lawlessness as interpreted by a domestic professor (from the same Inquirer article (emphasis added)
Ateneo School of Government Dean Antonio La Viña said the declaration provided extraordinary powers to allow Duterte to “wage a most efficacious defense of the nation in times of crisis, without being unduly straitjacketed by structural and bureaucratic restraints.”
La Viña explained in a Facebook post that summoning armed forces to combat lawless violence under the declaration is the “most benign” of the powers allowed under Article VII, Section 18.
Martial law is the power that is “most serious and carries the most impact on the social and political life of the nations,” he said.
But La Viña noted that the level of conflict warranting such extraordinary powers tends to “depend on this wide presidential discretion.”
He cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in David v. Arroyo that said “the power is by and large a discretionary power solely vested on the President’s wisdom.”
“For which reason, emergency rule becomes fraught with opportunities for abuse; a gateway to constitutional shortcuts. Once emergency rule is declared, the constitutional bonds are loosened that could create a window of opportunity for unrestricted power,” he said.
La Viña said the 1987 Constitution was designed with a pervading theme to “do away with all possibilities of strongman rule, no doubt a painful lesson of the Marcos dictatorship.”…
La Viña said the extraordinary powers of the President could be considered, at best, “a necessary evil.”
But he cautioned that “extraordinary powers should only be invoked as a last resort.”
“It should never be considered normal, must never be lightly granted by Congress, and if the right case or controversy comes, the Supreme Court have to scrutinize this carefully,” he said.
While there exists the “ever-present possibility” of the slippery slope of frequently invoking emergency rule, La Viña said: “For now, [Mr.] Duterte’s declaration does not appear to lead us to that slope, but we must be vigilant.”
Superhero politics based on a state of war leads to tyranny. As I wrote in Duterte Administration’s First Month: July Government Revenues Tumbles by NEGATIVE 4.6% as Deficit Swell by 57%! (September 1, 2016)
AS one would observe war on drugs and vices, corruption, media, mining, oligarchy, endo, the latest war on the “enemies of the state” (GMA, August 25) and coming forms of political wars… needs unwavering support from the military and police, which are of course, the essence of all forms of government.
And the substantial pivot for the outpouring of funds and of privileges to such militant institutions not only means the buying of support but of their loyalty. The critical objective is to attain the fealty of the military and police to the administration’s coming courses of actions.
And yet the ultimate objective appears as the establishment of a dictatorship founded on ochlocracy(government of mob rule).
Social policies that promote violence will have violence as an outcome—whether such has been an outcome of a false flag or of perceived injustices transformed into reprisal activities.
Benjamin Franklin was right:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
No comments:
Post a Comment