COMMENTARY
THE elections are over. The Filipino people have decided. According to the unofficial count, Rodrigo Duterte won the presidential race by an overwhelming number, and Leni Robredo won over Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the vice presidential race by a very slim margin. Many of us still wonder what accounts for these results. The surest answer is that it is a combination of so many factors. I contend that pragmatic politics is one of the main explanations for the Duterte-Robredo phenomenon.
Pragmatism comes from the Greek word pragma which literally means “deeds.” One of the textbook definitions of pragmatism comes from Douglas Soccio, who says that it is “the point of view that beliefs are to be interpreted in terms of whether they work,” and that ideas are meaningful “to the extent that they produce practical results and are effective in furthering our aims.” To the American philosopher John Dewey, the pragmatic rule maintains that “in order to discover the meaning of an idea, ask for its consequences.”
Applied to the sphere of politics, the pragmatic attitude manifests when leaders and followers alike are not fixated with stable theories (such as democracy understood from the elitist point of view) and sheltered with sacred principles (such as morality understood from the sacerdotal point of view). Rather, it is when they become more receptive to the idea of tinkering with and negotiating these theories and principles to give way to those deeds and practices that pride themselves in desired consequences.
Pragmatism in politics was seen, for example, when the Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiaoping wisely quipped: “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.” Deng’s aphorism was intended as a reply to conservative Chinese critics who disagreed with his anticommunist policies, such as decentralization of the economy and participation in international trade, which in effect placed China on the highway to capitalism along with the United States and Britain. The proverbial cat is capitalism, and it does not mean much whether it is good or bad, just or unjust (metaphysically, morally and religiously). What is important is whether capitalism can work, and does work, in order to attain the desired purpose.
The choice of candidates for the highest posts of the land reflects pragmatic politics at work. The voters chose Duterte and Robredo because they have proven that their brand of leadership works. The voters perceived them to be not only bearers of promises but also guardians of sacred principles. More importantly, they were also deemed to be Mr. and Mrs. Deeds.
They may represent two divergent styles of “good” governance: One is a city mayor who disciplines and punishes while the other is the widow of a former city mayor who empowered and listened, aside from the fact that she has a long track record of working with the grassroots. But their divergence is overshadowed by what is perceived as their accomplishments in the local arenas. They are the living proofs of what works!
Thus, it does not matter much if Duterte cursed the Pope or that he joked about being first to rape an Australian missionary. It does not matter much if his words have the potential to antagonize diplomatic relations or that he poses a threat to many of our misplaced freedoms and misused rights. It does not matter much if he is a socialist or a communist, whatever the meaning of those words in the post-Marxist era. And it does not matter much if the exposé on his hidden wealth is for real.
In Robredo’s case, it does not matter much if she was an unknown or that she lacks political experience in the national scene. It does not matter much if she is affiliated with the current administration or that she was a reluctant candidate. And, of course, it does not matter much if she is a woman who would prove to be the last man standing.
At the end of the day, what matters for pragmatic Filipino voters is if the candidate can show concrete proofs that her words are not only promises and premises but also the verbalization of action. In the eyes of Filipino voters, the Duterte-Robredo phenomenon has worked in the micropolitics of Davao City and Naga City. During the campaign, Duterte and Robredo were simply the words and the texts. For many years before the campaign, the cities of Davao and Naga were the deeds and the contexts. Just like the pioneers of pragmatism (C.S. Peirce and William James), who intended to liberate philosophy from meaningless abstractions, Filipinos voted from the perception that politics must also be free of abstract sweet nothings and focus more on concrete results.
In a country that has long been waiting for the fruits of an Edsa experiment, whatever works is worth the try! In a political arena characterized by pluralism and relativism and further confounded by economic interests, cultural differences, and religious stirrings, a voter’s pragmatic attitude probably signifies a certain degree of political maturity in an otherwise peculiar Philippine democracy.
But the pragmatic mind must not only be concerned with whatever works. Receptivity to radical solutions must also be accompanied by skepticism and vigilance. Deng is also famed for telling the Chinese people, “We will cross the river by feeling stones under our feet, one by one.” For us Filipinos who chose Duterte and Robredo, the idea is to embrace the hopeful thought that change is really coming, but we must move with caution, remain grounded, and differentiate the stepping stones from the slippery ones.
Franz Giuseppe F. Cortez teaches philosophy subjects and good governance and social responsibility at the University of Santo Tomas.