And yet the ultimate objective appears as the establishment of a dictatorship founded on ochlocracy (government of mob rule).
The speed at which the evolution of the populist superhero effect politics has been unfolding has truly been remarkable.
And the reason I reiterate my earlier quote is to focus on the increasing likelihood of a pivotal shift in Philippine political economic trends, viz. the transition to a leftist dictatorship—through martial law.
Or multiple signs are already converging towards such direction in uncanny haste.
Media and the government have erected a list of scapegoats for the Davao bombing which claimed many lives. These include the extremist Abu Sayyaf (GMA September 3), the emergent terror group the Black Flag Movement (GMA, September 6), embattled drug lords (GMA September 5) or even disgruntled vendors (CNN Philippines, September 5). The list includes a combination, for instance, drug lords have allegedly hired Abu Sayyaf to conduct “narco-terrorism”.
Hardly have media and the government showed to the public: what has motivated or incited such group/s to engage in such nefarious activities? Have these been about reprisal? Have these signified a diversionary tactic (e.g. as the rebel BIFF accused the Abu Sayyaf Philstar September 5)? Have these been a part of an assassination plot on the leadership (GMA, September 2)? Have these been for (economic or political) blackmail? Or have these been intended to sow terror to signal a new war by an undisclosed group?
Also little tackled in the public discussion has been what group will benefit most from such undertaking?
It was not just a single blast. There were three reported bombings in different locations aside from Davao: the NGCP power transmission tower or grid at North Cotabato and the residence of a politician at South Cotabato (Inquirer September 4).
As to whether these have been linked or not have yet to be established. The latter two has not resulted to casualties for it to gain attention.
Now comes the report that the Duterte government had already contrived up a declaration of a state of lawlessness even PRIOR to the bombing.
From GMA (September 5)
President Rodrigo Duterte was set to declare a "state of lawlessness" even before the deadly Davao City blast last Friday night plunged the whole country in panic.
Presidential Legal Adviser Salvador Panelo said on Sunday that the Davao blast was not a trigger to the President's declaration, which was already in the planning stage before the incident that left over a dozen dead and over 60 wounded.
"Hindi 'yan nag-trigger. Actually, nasa planning stage na 'yan [declaration], in fact, nagda-draft na nga kami ng proclamation eh," Panelo told Super Radyo dzBB.
He said said that he and Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea had prepared separate drafts for the planned executive order on the state of lawlessness, which was supposed to be released either today, September 4, or Monday, Sept. 5.
However in today’s signing of the proclamation of “the state of national emergency on the account of lawless violence”, news reports say that such emergency powers were in response ONLY to recent events: (Interaksyon September 6): “Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea said the bases for the one-page declaration were the recent jailbreak pulled off by the Maute group in Lanao del Sur, the beheading of kidnap victims by and continuing offensive against the Abu Sayyaf, and the Davao blast that killed 14 persons and wounded dozens more. This contrasted with what Duterte’s chief legal counsel Salvador Panelo earlier said, that even before the Davao explosion, declaration was already being drafted with the government’s€œwar on crime and drugs, and the increasing incidence of extrajudicial killings that have accompanied this, among the reasons.” (bold added)
So after promoting violence (war drugs) which resulted to counter (most likely reactionary) violence, the Philippine government used the latter as pretext to impose and or to imbue upon itself emergency powers.
It’s been an irony because the government earlier refuted claims that it would embrace emergency powers only because of the Abu Sayyaf (Yahoo/AFP, August 31).
And if the legal counsel’s view has been accurate then this means that the bombing only served as popular justification to the acquisition of a pre-planned or intentionally designed emergency powers. Said differently, emergency power was to be implemented with or without the bombing. Bombing made things a lot easier.
So who benefited most from the bombing? Has it not been the incumbent government?
This reverberates with former defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile’s staged ambush in September 22, 1972 (almost 40 years ago) which eventually paved way for President Marcos’ declaration of 1972 martial law. As an aside, Mr. Enrile denies this in his autobiography. However he previously admitted to the false flag account to justify martial law to various foreign correspondents (Inquirer October 8, 2012).
Could the NPAs, as mercenaries for the government, have pulled this off? Or could vigilante death squads have been responsible?
Or has an X (foreign) factor been the culprit (discussed below)?
None of this has gotten any mileage. Anyone but the government is responsible.
That’s because the government continues to embrace the PR policy of continued flip flopping perhaps for plausible deniability purposes—to ensure that any policy mistakes would allow the government access to escape hatches by denial. One can’t pin the government because of constantly changing or fluid positions.
This may have also been intended for symbolical purposes—appear steadfast, morally upright and sincere in the pursuit of populist goals (e.g. war on drugs, nationalism) through firebrand statements to appease his ochlocratic zealots. And this will be backtracked with political weaseling or by downscaling of aggressive previously provoking statements. For example the political leadership’s threat to withdraw from the UN was varnished as a “jest” (GMA August 23). Although the leadership had another U-turn to lambast the UN (Inquirer August 26)
And speaking of symbolical PR mileage to justify emergency powers, if the war on drugs has gone out of control in terms of finance, the war on drugs have also run amuck in terms of foreign policy.
The Philippine president’s outburst of expletives, and or threats, to anyone challenging his pet project war on drugs, or via ad hominem politics, found the US president as a curious (“son of a whore”) shock absorber. (Yahoo/AFP September 6).
The US president’s response was to stiff the Philippine president by the cancellation of an earlier scheduled meeting.
From Bloomberg (September 6, 2016): U.S. President Barack Obama scrapped a meeting with his Philippine counterpart, Rodrigo Duterte, in Laos after Duterte unleashed an expletive-laden warning against the U.S. interfering in a war on drugs that’s led to the deaths of thousands of suspects. National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said Obama won’t go through with a scheduled bilateral meeting with Duterte on Tuesday at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Laos. Instead, he’ll will meet with South Korean President Park Geun Hye, Price said in a statement.
The pattern of response has been similar. Veneer the initial inflammatory statements with diplomacy—this time colored by “regret”. From Reuters (September 6, 2016): "President Duterte explained that the press reports that President Obama would 'lecture' him on extrajudicial killings led to his strong comments, which in turn elicited concern," the Philippines government said in one statement. "He regrets that his remarks to the press have caused much controversy," it added. "He expressed his deep regard and affinity for President Obama and for the enduring partnership between our nations." (bold added)
Again the rhetorical pattern of political management has been similar: attack and then downscale.
Although Mr Obama may be a lame duck, should Obama’s appointee democratic candidate Ms Hillary Clinton win the coming elections, she’d likely be more an interventionist than her predecessor. After all, Mrs Clinton was critical to the foundation to the Obama’s regime geopolitical policy known as the 'Asian Pivot'. And the overthrow of Libyan strongman Gaddafi and the Syrian civil war has been attributed as much of a handiworkof Obama’s preferred replacement.
In addition, Republican challenger Donald Trump has been challenged by Mr. Duterte to a fist duel (Adobe Chronicles, August 5) because of the former’s recent smite at the Philippines
In short, the Philippine leadership’s PR strategy to “sleight and mollify” would unlikely be an accepted foreign policy approach especially to the upcoming US leadership whether Clinton or Trump.
PR handlers of the Philippine government’s leadership have been taking on huge risks
And the ramifications of “sleight and mollify” demagoguery would unlikely be beneficial.
-If my suspicions have been accurate that credit upgrades in 2013 had been anchored to the accommodation of US military forces via bases through EDCA, and if the latter will be in jeopardy, then expect coming downgrades on the Philippine credit rating ratings.
-Growing rift between US and Philippines translates to the Philippines having to deal with the Chinese government alone on territorial disputes (This should be a good thing if trade rather than antagonism will be the approach)
-Investment and portfolio flows from US and allied nations will be reduced. Credit flows will likely ebb.
-Given the US government’s covert influence on local politics, it wouldn’t be farfetched that terrorist groups and or the opposition will be used and funded by the US government (CIA and or Pentagon) with the goal to overthrow the incumbent government.
The US has been no stranger in influencing local wars. US drones had been actively interceding against or bombing local terrorist in 2012. The Mamasapano debacle had US government fingerprints all over despite off official denial. CIA operative Edward Landsdale openly assisted the intelligence services of the AFP in battling the Hukbalahap insurgency during the Magsaysay presidency. These are just few examples.
And could it have been that the X bomber/s was or were hired by the CIA?
Yes, I agree all these point to historical C-H-A-N-G-E!
But sad to say, not in the direction according to popular perception!
Historical C-H-A-N-G-E translates to violence begetting violence. Murder substituting for drugs and other vices. War on anything will eclipse economic activities. And this would accelerate the exposure of the latter’s fragility and imbalances from bubbles.
As proof, an atmosphere of fear and intimidation has enveloped the Philippine milieu due to mounting death toll, now 2,400 (Interaksyon September 5), from the war on drugs (Reuters/Yahoo September 5).
The DILG chief (GMA September 5) and the Philippine military (GMA September 1) have warned against extended bombing or attacks on major cities.
Bomb scare has spread to schools (Interaksyon September 5) and more…
Media has intoned signs of sullenness too.
Think of just how an environment drowning in fear and intimidation will encourage investments, trade and consumption!
And sad to say that the government’s war on drugs has also been inconsistently applied.
Aside from exempting residents of wealthy villages, the government wishes to provide support to an accused domestic drug trafficker in Indonesia who was recently meted a death sentence (GMA September 1).
In addition, the leadership’s source of information on suspected drug participants have not been from the police (GMA September 1). This implies that information used for the slaughter of supposed suspects could have been from unverified and dubious sources. (See why some of the accused in the government have either been long dead or retired?)
Moreover, the government admitted that some of police drug operations were not legitimate (GMA September 1). This translates to growing accounts of police abuses!
The repression or war on citizenry have only been deepening or intensifying
The wisdom of the late great libertarian Henry Louis Menckel reverberates
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
