2196608

CELESTE, Allyzza Vienne C.

BA POLIT SC - 2

The review surveyed the newly opened ground for the study of Philippine populism and its relationship with the
incumbent and beleaguered liberal democratic regime. Duterte’s political disruption to the status quo is reflected
in the multiplicity of labels leveled at it which bars and frustrates more systematic analysis. His actions, policies,
and values conveyed in his public performances, impaired the compass of the Philippine polity, and exposed
institutionalized values like basic human rights to public attacks. This review posits several threads and
intersections between the reviewed publications analyzing Duterte’s rise to power and his impact on Philippine
politics. The different labels hurled at Duterte’s politics can only be analyzed effectively by utilizing the concept
of ideology. By doing so, future studies can replicate previous analyses on the discursive and performative
dimensions of populism and allow for a more systematic inquiry of the normative values shared within the
Philippine polity. While the works seem to avoid a direct confrontation of the ideological aspects of the Duterte’s
politics, their data and analyses provided tools and insights in furthering understanding and even reviving the
study of ideology in Philippine politics. Hence, this review posits three tasks that can reintegrate ideology with
the analysis of the current crisis of liberal democracy. First is to systematically trace the origins and
developments of important political ideas that informed Philippine politics since the postcolonial republics.
Claudio (2017), in particular, sets a necessary starting point for this task with the evolution of postcolonial
liberalism. The way forward is to further investigate points of contestation between said liberalism with rivaling
ideas and ideologies during the period to contemporary times. Moreover, it should be founded on a conscious
analysis of how concepts and conceptual maps underlying liberal discourse were formed and developed
through time as was required by the framework proposed by Freeden (1996). As was illustrated above, the
current literature has covered ground on the development and emergences of thick and thin ideologies and may
provide possible templates and frameworks the works reviewed could have utilized. This task also provides
opportunities to engage intersections with works in political history and philosophy (e.g. the works under
Pantayong Pananaw) which seek to fulfill the same task. By engaging this first task, scholars may further
elaborate on the paradox between liberalism, democracy, and the ever misunderstood populism. It is imperative
that academics align themselves with the disruptions in the political compass of Philippine society. This is done
by leaving any normative baggage in analyzing all ideological tendencies ranging from populism to liberalism
itself. Hence, it is a paradigmatic shift not from one ideology to another but from normative to non-normative
analysis. PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 11 For instance, Claudio (2017) phrases his question
on liberalism assuming its practicality rather than analyzing liberalism as a system of concepts in public
discourse. If the author utilized the approaches proposed by Van Dijk (2006) and Freeden (1996, 1998, 2006),
his analysis would have acquired the necessary analytical backbone to portray postcolonial liberalism as a
conceptual map subjected to changes and adaptations throughout its history. A purely historical approach can
never adequately address a political scientific question, especially the issue of ideology that his work tried to
tackle. Second is to identify the emergent behaviors stemming from the political ideas and ideologies.
Ideologies are dangerous because of their potential in motivating radical changes in society and even violent
movements against an identified “other.” Kusaka 2017b) demonstrated this in his moral politics framework and
provides much room for elaboration. Ideologies are sustained by both institutions and habit. Thus, pursuing a
study of ideologies opens ground for the study of political behavior. Third is to focus on political attitudes or
altered understandings from the existing ideologies. This task requires studies gathering data from more
grounded sources like public opinion, and civic attitudes and behavior. Heydarian and Claudio’s respective
works were limited by their focus on elite perspectives and theories on high politics. While certain portions of the
Duterte Reader focused on voters’ preferences, particularly Holmes (2017) and Lamchek (2017), there are still
opportunities to explore political attitudes on populism and liberalism as ideologies. One important question to
ask from this task is how liberal or illiberal are the values held by the Philippine polity.4 In conclusion, future
studies must recognize the inherent paradox between liberalism and democracy. The Philippines may have
distinct features but it still does not escape from said paradox. By doing so, Philippine political science can
engage and integrate itself in the larger debates on ideology and its impact on politics. Duterte’s politics is but
one manifestation of the democratic paradox and future works can pin this paradox down for dissection through
the concept of ideology. The Philippine political scientific community has been silent on ideology for far too long.
Hence, now is the time to call it by its name.