By now, people who have listened to President Duterte speak in public
a couple of times may have learned to focus less on the information he
“gives” than on the information he “gives off.” Not so much on the
priorities of his administration, as on who the current objects of
presidential ire are. Not so much on what he says as how he says it.
Some people can never get used to this style of public speaking. But,
not his legion of admirers. They prefer authenticity over substance,
and every speech of the President seems to affirm this for them. They
like seeing him unbound and unchanged by the trappings of the
presidency. To them, it is a comforting sign that he remains the
individual that he is, the sole author of his actions — neither the
aloof functionary of an anonymous entity called government, nor the tool
of a despised oligarchy.
Mr. Duterte plays this role to the hilt. He manifests impatience and
awkwardness, and, sometimes, even contempt, for the rituals that have
become integral to the office of the President. The State of the Nation
Address is a prime example of these rituals. Most presidents do their
best to embrace the role assigned to them in these state functions. They
try hard to sound and look as though they were not reading from a
teleprompter, that they understand and mean every word they speak. Mr.
Duterte is different. Indeed, he not only deviates from his prepared
speech; he also seems to draw satisfaction from mocking the artifice
behind the entire event.
At several points in his second Sona, Mr. Duterte tells the operator
of the teleprompter to stop rolling the text because his eyes were
getting tired. Prior to this, he is seen dutifully reading the text as
though it were something he wanted to quickly get done with. With the
official text in suspension, he pauses, takes a deep breath, and
squarely faces his audience. Then, like the common folk who identify
with him, he proceeds to “speak from the heart.” As though on cue, the
audience sits up to listen intently to the authentic voice of the man
who occupies the highest office of the land.
This is the magic behind Mr. Duterte’s speaking style. Although he
often speaks in a kind of drone, he is never boring. And, it is not
merely because of his colorful language; it is also because of the
unrestrained and raw quality of his casual speech.
The
image he projects is that of someone who talks with authority not
because of the office he occupies but because of the person that he is.
The Arcade Dictionary of Word Origins explains the origin of the word
“authentic” thus: “Etymologically, something that is authentic is
something that has the authority of its original creator.”
Certainly, Mr. Duterte would be interesting to listen to any time. He
is folksy, friendly, and funny; he loves to crack outrageous jokes, and
never runs out of stories to make a point. His reputation as an
endearing thug also precedes him. But, if he were not president, I doubt
if he would be able to command the same attention that he does when he
addresses the public from the high perch of his office.
The public has always looked up to the office of the President as a
source of direction in uncertain times, a beacon for a nation in need of
orientation. Perhaps, in a complex society, it no longer serves this
purpose for a lot of people, in the same way that politics itself has
lost much of the aura that used to shroud it in traditional society.
Nowadays, it is not uncommon to hear people speak of politics and of
politicians in purely negative terms.
In many ways, the rise of antiestablishment leaders like President
Duterte is symptomatic of these antipolitical times. They represent, to
the common folk, the antithesis of the polished statesman, the
technocrat, and the professional politician. Thrust into the nerve
center of the state by the same electoral exercise they distrust, such
leaders invariably find themselves hemmed in by the sheer power of the
formative routines of the modern political system.
Their charisma and their willfulness notwithstanding, they soon
realize they have no choice but to bow to the authority of the systems
in place if they are to get anything done. Much as they wish to skirt
them, they could not ignore the existing hierarchies of decision-making
and accountability to which officials in the lower echelons of
government are in thrall. At every turn, leaders like Mr. Duterte are
reminded of the imperatives of due process, of the rule of law, of the
inviolability of the principle of separation of powers, of the autonomy
of constitutional bodies, and the sanctity of contracts, etc. They have
so much power over the lives of their citizens, but they soon discover
that the economy is not under their command, nor are the educational,
religious, and communication systems of society.
I think that if we want to know where the Duterte administration is
headed, we would learn more from carefully scrutinizing the text and
subtext of the written Sona (portions of which the President skipped)
and the proposed national budget that accompanies it, than from
attempting to decipher the deep impulses behind Mr. Duterte’s
fulminations.
Like every politician before him, President Duterte has promised
radical change under his administration. His fiery rhetoric conveys this
in no uncertain terms. But, I think, unless they are specifically
named, those whose fortunes are massively affected by the twists and
turns of government policy might learn to listen to these off-the-cuff
presidential speeches more for amusement than for policy guidance.
Having said that, I cannot presume to know how these speeches shape the
consciousness of the ordinary folk.
source: Philippine Daily Inquirer
By:
Randy David public.lives@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment