On September 11, 2016, The New York Times (NYT) ran an <a href="https://goo.gl/EpfjsY" class="news_link" title="Article" target="_blank">excellent article</a> on the spate of killings that started with the election of Rodrigo Duterte as president of the Philippines. And because Amanda Taub's NYT essay, "How Countries Like the Philippines Fall Into Vigilante Violence", went beyond the usual, lazy Western media framing of the highly publicized deaths as a human-rights issue, it cannot be dismissed as just another anti-Duterte screed.


Taub's thesis is that when a victimized citizenry seeks tough anti-crime measures from a weak state, leaders will rise who offer quick-fix solutions that the government cannot seem to provide. As it was in Guatemala and Colombia, Taub posited, so it will be in the Philippines, now that Duterte has assumed the presidency.


The comparisons to violence-prone South American banana republics are not new, of course. But unlike most Western commentators, Taub actually attempts to explain how the Philippines descended into weak-state status, to the point where its people started demanding Duterte's ministrations.


This is what Amanda Taub wrote:

<div class="article-comment">

"The true roots of the problem can be traced to the administration of Mr. Duterte's predecessor, Benigno Aquino III. That is because, experts say, the true cause of this kind of extrajudicial violence is the public's loss of confidence in state institutions and its turning instead to more immediate forms of punishment and control.


"Mr. Aquino, elected in 2010 on promises to support the rule of law and human rights, failed to fix the Philippines' corrupt and ineffective justice system. His administration also faced a series of security-related scandals, [beginning with] a hostage crisis in Manila in 2010.


"And, perhaps most critical, Mr. Aquino was perceived as lazy and soft, unwilling to take the necessary steps to solve the country's problems. Frustration with the government's inability to provide basic security led to rising public demand for new leaders who would take more decisive action to provide security."

</div>


It takes perception to see beyond the human-rights blather - peddled mostly by sidelined agents of the past administration - and to recognize the culpability of Aquino in the creation of the country's public security crisis. Indeed, if Aquino had merely decided to work at solving the problems of runaway crime and the proliferation of illegal drugs, Duterte would probably never had been elected president.


Now that Duterte is trying to solve the mess Aquino created, he is being pilloried by those who really should know better. Perhaps they really believe that doing nothing but paying lip service to reform and ignoring crime and corruption is really the best course of action.



Sources: 

<ol class="article-sources">
<li>
NYT blames Noynoy by Jojo Robles, September 13, 2016 (<a href="https://goo.gl/9snB3c" class="news_link" target="_blank" title="Source">The Manila Standard</a>)
</li>
<li>
Photo credit: Mark R. Cristino/European Pressphoto Agency via New York Times
</li>
</ol>


(This is an abridged version of the source listed above. We are unable to grant permission for any kind of reproduction other than social media shares.)

Philippines' extrajudicial violence traces roots to BS Aquino says New York Times