Perpetual Cycle of Rottenness: How Quezonian Politics Paved the Way for Marcos-Duterte Regime

Kas 113 (Economic History of the Philippines) Reflection Paper

Patronage politics, electoral violence, political manipulation, union busting, anti-poor policies, and crony capitalism. These scourges to Philippine society were unfortunately not new, and it is terrifying how we are getting used to it. But they were further amplified especially during the Marcos regime and the Duterte presidency, more so now that their children now both rule the country. A superficial glance to the roots of these societal ills may pinpoint the dictatorial rule of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. as the culprit. But it can be argued that a retrospective approach to the source of the rottenness of Philippine politics will reveal that the pattern can traced way back to the Commonwealth government.

Though generally viewed as by most historians and politicians as one of the greatest statesman, maybe even a hero, in Philippine history, American historian Alfred McCoy took a different path by demonstrating how President Manuel L. Quezon’s style of governance may have contributed to the ongoing cycle of institutional issues that still lingers to this day. Granted that he was one of the country’s most consequential leaders, his administration is still no exception when it comes to shortcomings. This is not to say, however, that the three presidents were alike and the same when it comes to their authoritarian tendencies.

Quezon was mostly known for his bravado personality and his masterful skill for negotiations so much that he was able to manipulate US colonial officers. On the other hand, Marcos—though also as methodical, persuasive, and classy as Quezon—was more ambitious, cunning, and sinister. But Rodrigo Duterte, being a man of contradictions, is more complicated to assess. He projects a frugal image to the masses unlike the previous two, unapologetic on his profanity, and often does not have clear stances on most critical political issues. In addition, Duterte was also known for being the first Philippine president to open defy the United States, unlike his predecessors which main foreign policies consist of pandering to the American interests, Quezon and Marcos included.

But if there is one thing that all of them have in common, it was their inclination towards populism. They all managed to gather the support of many Filipinos through the us versus them narrative (Quezon with US colonial government, Marcos with communists and Muslim rebels, and Duterte with liberal elites). Some degree of parallelism can also be seen on their big promises towards the poor, such as Quezon’s promise to enact social justice for the laborers, Marcos to starts a revolution from above through his New Society, and Duterte to eliminate criminality in a few months. The more that one would dig deeper, the more that one would see the same political problem on each administration over and over again.

Take for example the culture of patronage politics, which is the usual granting of political favor on someone based on partisan interest. This is present in almost every administration, using this as their tool to keep their own party in dominant power while rendering their opposition impotent. Recent example of this is the sheer number of politicians in bicameral Congress where the majority is allied to President Bongbong Marcos and Vice President Sara Duterte. The same with their former president fathers which used the same tactics to keep their PDP-Laban and Nacionalista Party respectively, in power. Apparently, Quezon did the same through meddling with local political rivalries and having negotiation meetings in order to make sure that his Nacionalistas will remain to the top, to the point that being chosen by the Commonwealth president as a candidate will almost guarantee a victory.

In relation to this, another social sickness manifesting in Philippine politics is crony capitalism. Quezon surrounded himself with wealthy mestizo hacienderos and American businessmen, enriching them through government loans to expand their businesses while simultaneously them securing his political power. Some of them like Joaquin Elizalde and Vicente Madrigal even granted government positions for contributing to Quezon’s 1935 presidential campaign. Compare that to Marcos where cronyism became most rampant, with the likes of Roberto Benedicto, Juan Ponce Enrile, Kokoy Romualdez and others seized the assets of other oligarchs against the regime and took them for themselves. Like Marcos, Duterte also used the tactic of hating the oligarchs while enriching his ally cronies like Roberto Ongpin, Manny Villar, and Apollo Quiboloy through sheer hypocrisy. This time, by presenting himself as a common man that speaks, acts, and dresses like them, he attempted to distance himself from the neoliberal oligarchs of the Aquino administration.

As a consequences of their efforts to pander with the wealthy elites to stay in power, the three presidents all ended up breaking their promises and further marginalized the peasantry. Quezon’s failed social justice programs and agrarian reforms worsened the conditions of farmers which intensified the influence of leftist parties (Pedro Abad Santos’ Socialist Party, Crisanto Evangelista’s Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas, and Benigno Ramos’ Sakdalista). Meanwhile, massive corruptions during the Marcos regime like the Coco Levy Scandal and Negros sugar collapse (that resulted to Negros Famine of 1985), as well as a series of failed programs and policies, essentially damaged the Philippine agricultural industry, further sinking farmers into the ever-deepening quicksand of poverty. Duterte, on the other hand, for the same reason of pandering to landowning cronies, never made the situation any better by implementing band-aid solutions like irrigation fees and the Rice Tariffication Law.

But keep in mind that what we are trying to establish here is not that Quezon, Marcos, or Duterte were bad presidents. That entirely depends on how one would judge them (though among three of them, Marcos clearly had the objectively worse record). The point is, the sickness that still plagues our society is just evolving, mutating into new forms of strains. The most effective antidote for this is obviously is to look back in our history and learn something from it: a task that most Filipino people are failing to accomplish. As cliché as Santayana might sound, his message about people being doomed to repeat history by not learning from its lessons, becomes more relevant and important than ever. Because apparently, we collectively blundered this last election by bringing back the forces of evil that we once sought to overthrow.

Sources:

• Castaneda, Jason. 2022. Duterte’s oligarchs enriched in waning days of his rule. February 10. Accessed November 25, 2022. https://asiatimes.com/2022/02/dutertes-oligarchs-enriched-in-waning-days-of-his-rule/.

• McCoy, Alfred. 2017. "GlobaL Populism: A Lineage of Filipino Strongmen from Quezon to Marcos and Duterte." Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies, Vol. 32 7-54.

• McCoy, Alfred. 1989. "Quezon's Commonwealth: The Emergence of Philippine Authoritarianism." Philippine Colonial Democracy 114-161.

• Mendoza, Ronald U. 2020. "Is Duterte a Populist? Rhetoric vs. Reality." Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development 266-279.

• Mijares, Primitivo. 2017. The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

• Tadem, Eduardo C. 2022. "How Marcos Undermined Philippine Agriculture." Philippine Journal of Public Policy: Interdisciplinary Development Perspectives 171-188.

• Teehankee, Julio. 2016. "Duterte’s Resurgent Nationalism in the Philippines: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis." Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 3 69-89.

Published on January 22, 2023