Journal of ASEAN Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2018), pp. 82-96 

https://doi.org/10.21512/jas.v6i1.4927 

©2018 by CBDS Bina Nusantara University and Indonesian Association for International Relations 

ISSN 2338-1361 print / ISSN 2338-1353 electronic 

The Radical Politics of Nation-States: The Case of 

President Rodrigo Duterte 

 
Christopher Ryan Maboloc  Ateneo de Davao University, Philippines 

Abstract 

The advent of terrorism in the midst of political conflict requires an understanding of 

local context and history. Anti-establishment leaders like President Rodrigo Duterte 

expose the limits of liberalism. By applying the critical distinction between “politics” 

and the “political,” we can imagine an alternative framework in our desire to unravel the 

narrative of Duterte’s communitarian style. Disruption is not simply meant to put into 

question the status quo. The goal of progressive leadership is to transform society in 

ways that will improve the difficult lives of the people. While the president’s critics say 

that he is authoritarian, it will be argued that radical means are needed to overcome the 

failures of Philippine democracy.  

Key words: radical democracy, President Duterte, terrorism, disruptive politics 

 

Introduction 

Is President Rodrigo Duterte’s 

radicalism a sign of the imminent end to 

elitist politics in Philippine society? 

Vicente Rafael (2016) believes that the 

Philippine president belongs to “an older 

world of authoritarianism that draws on 

fascist discourse and revolutionary 

martyrdom to do away with any 

constraints.” The historian thinks that 

Duterte is angry at his detractors, 

especially those from the West, because 

the president “feels that such critics, by 

speaking out, are themselves violating his 

rights as the sovereign embodiment of the 

people – rights that include the right to 

violate the rights of some in order to 

protect the lives of others” (Rafael, 2016). 

Rafael appears to be saying that a leader 

who oppresses the powerless cannot be 

the liberator of his people. But Duterte is a 

living paradox. Though some sectors in 

Philippine society chastise him, Duterte 

remains extremely popular because 

Filipinos have faith in the idea that the 

present occupant of Malacañang possesses 

the important leadership attributes that 

previous presidents lacked. Without 

argument, Philippine society is witnessing 

a progressive approach to governance that 

the country has never seen before. 

Rodrigo Duterte, the 16th president 

of the Philippines, was born in Maasin, 

Leyte on March 28, 1945. He finished his 

elementary at Sta. Ana Elementary School, 

in Davao City. The son of a former 

governor of the undivided Davao 

Province, Duterte went to Holy Cross 

College of Digos (now Cor Jesu College) 

to complete his secondary education, after 



Journal of ASEAN Studies  83 
 

 

having been expelled from the Ateneo de 

Davao University for misconduct. He 

graduated with a degree in political 

science in 1968 at the Lyceum of the 

Philippines and a Bachelor of Laws in 

1972 from San Beda College. He passed 

the bar exam in the same year. 

Karl Gaspar, a prominent 

anthropologist from Mindanao, was a 

schoolmate of Duterte in high school. 

Gaspar was incarcerated during Martial 

Law. Both met again some years after 

their graduation when Duterte was 

assigned as the prosecutor in the case filed 

against him by the Marcos regime. During 

an interview, Gaspar said: “I did not vote 

for him…When he won, I was hoping you 

know that change would come. I was a bit 

optimistic regarding how he could 

function as president and truly proud that 

we have somebody from Davao, from 

Mindanao who finally made it as the 

President of the Republic of the 

Philippines” (Basallajes and Dejito, 2018). 

But Gaspar was disappointed when 

Duterte allowed the burial of Marcos in 

the Libingan ng mga Bayani. He is still 

hopeful, however, that the president will 

fulfill his promise to end corruption, bring 

peace to Mindanao, and embrace a truly 

independent foreign policy (Basallajes and 

Dejito, 2018). 

This study problematizes the style 

of leadership of Duterte. It will be argued 

that the linear approach to nation-building 

will not work given the reality of political 

discord in nation-states. But this inquiry 

also examines the role of solidarity in the 

attempt of charismatic leaders to reverse 

the fortunes of people. Duterte thinks that 

his radical means are necessary to alter the 

destiny of the Filipino people. But more 

than anything else, the non-traditional 

ways of his governance reflect the anti-

establishment sentiment that now grips 

the order of things in the world. 

To achieve its modest goal of 

explaining the meaning of Duterte’s 

radical approach, this study employs 

critical analysis in Philosophy as a 

research methodology. Philosophy does 

not have a singular approach. The search 

for the truth depends on the rigor of 

critical thinking. But it is nonetheless 

concerned with profound questions. 

While philosophical thought abstracts 

from the real world, it also seeks answers 

to those questions that have implications 

to human life. While philosophical 

reflection is not a prominent way of doing 

research in Philippine studies, it is helpful 

if people understand their self-identity. 

To elaborate this issue, the 

research firstly discusses the advent of 

terrorism and shows how the same is bred 

in nation-states like the Philippines. It 

begins with the Marawi Crisis since how 

Duterte has quelled the rebellion is 

suggestive of his strong leadership. 

Second, the meaning of radical politics in 

nation-states is considered under which 

the paper explores whether Duterte’s style 

of leadership fits the description. Third, 

while the progressive approach of the 

current Philippine president is seen as 

disruptive, the paper argues that it is 

crucial in transforming Philippine politics. 

Fourth, this study examines the root cause 



84  The Radical Politics of Nation-States 
 

 

of the Bangsamoro problem and argues 

that Duterte’s radical leadership is crucial 

in addressing the historical injustices done 

against Muslim Filipinos. Finally, the 

paper reveals a gap in personalistic 

politics and proposes that strengthening 

basic institutions is paramount in 

achieving the ends of social justice. 

The Marawi Crisis and the Advent of 

Terror 

On May 23, 2017, a terrorist 

organization called Dawlah Islamiyah, 

locally known as the Maute Group, raised 

the ISIS Flag in Marawi City, a bustling 

urban center in western Mindanao, 506 

miles away from Manila. On the same 

day, while on an official State Visit to 

Russia, President Duterte declared Martial 

Law on the whole island of Mindanao. The 

Maute Group had one aim – to establish 

the first Islamic caliphate in this part of 

Southeast Asia. Led by two brothers, 

Omar and Abdullah Maute, the group 

made an alliance with another terror 

organization – the Abu Sayyaf Group 

(ASG). Five months after quelling the 

violent siege in Marawi, the Armed Forces 

of the Philippines reported that 802 

militants, 160 government forces, and 47 

civilians have been killed (Fonbuena, 

2017). Duterte’s leadership was critical in 

ending the rebellion. The president visited 

Marawi during combat to boost the 

morale of soldiers on the ground. No 

Philippine president in more than half a 

century has done the same. 

The Abu Sayyaf group is infamous 

for the Sipadan hostage crisis. The 

notorious terrorist organization was 

organized by a mujahideen, Abdurajak 

Janjalani. Its links to Al Qaeda can be 

traced to the fact that Janjalani fought 

alongside Osama Bin Laden against the 

Russians during the 1979 Soviet invasion 

of Afghanistan. It was reported that the 

terrorist received six million dollars from 

Bin Laden to establish the Abu Sayyaf 

Group (ASG). The militant organization, 

which bombed the Superferry 14 

passenger vessel in the Philippines in 

2004, killing 116 people in the process, 

follows the Wahhabi doctrine of Sunni 

Islam. The ASG has attracted young 

Muslim Filipinos, mostly from the 

provinces of Basilan and Sulu. 

Before the US 9/11 attacks, Bin 

Laden was consolidating power as the 

great leader of Al-Qaeda (Bergen, 2011). He 

inspired his disciples who often described 

the experience with the terrorist as a 

spiritual awakening. Peter Bergen (2011) 

wrote that the first encounters with Bin 

Laden by his followers were found to be 

awe-inspiring and felt with God-like 

reverence. Though born with an 

enormous fortune, being the son of a rich 

Saudi contractor, Bin Laden gave up a life 

of luxury. He was viewed as an 

extraordinarily charismatic man (Bergen, 

2011). The terrorist was not just the titular 

head of the Al Qaeda organization – he 

was the symbol for Jihad or Holy War 

against the enemies of Islam (Bergen, 

2011). 

Extremist groups showcase their 

war as the struggle against what they 

claim as US hegemony in the world. 

Terrorist leaders persuade their young 



Journal of ASEAN Studies  85 
 

 

recruits to wear suicide vests by 

presenting to them a type of an unjust 

socio-political order in which US imperial 

interests allegedly undermine the rights of 

Muslims. But terrorists have no ideology 

to speak of. They sow fear and only intend 

to disrupt normal civilian life. Nick Fotion 

(2004, pp.46) thinks that “there are, of 

course, degrees of innocence and guilt; but 

terrorists who choose all their victims in a 

random or near-random fashion cannot 

help but victimize people who are 

innocent of any political wrongdoing.” 

The random killing of innocent 

civilians is the conceptual trait of 

terrorism (Fotion, 2004). Walter Laqueur 

(1987, pp.143) believes that 

“terrorists…assume that the slaughter of 

innocents would sow panic, give them 

publicity and help to destabilize the state 

and society.” The above point is the 

standard explanation. However, our task 

is to examine the reality of terror further 

in the tension between modern liberalism 

and the communitarian nature of politics 

in nation-states. This is indicative that at 

the heart of modern liberalism “is the 

problem of peaceful co-existence among 

people with different conceptions of the 

good” (Mouffe, 2009, pp.2). 

Francis Fukuyama (1992) thinks of 

liberalism as the finality of history since 

authoritarian regimes have been 

collapsing. However, societies are 

marching into new forms of political 

enmity. The most contentious issue 

confronting modern democracy is the 

question of cultural hegemony. The 

oppression of millions has taken a radical 

turn. The political dichotomy between the 

bourgeois and the proletariat is no longer 

the greatest threat to the global order. 

Samuel Huntington (1996, pp.33) explains 

that “at a more general level, conflicts 

between rich and poor are unlikely 

because, except in some special 

circumstances, poor countries lack the 

political unity, economic power, or the 

military capability to challenge rich 

countries.” 

The poverty of peoples is the least 

of the West’s concern. The war of cultures 

is the dragon that will slay modern day 

liberalism. In various parts of the world, a 

form of non-traditional state-building is 

unfolding. After the US invasion of Iraq 

and Afghanistan, the latter established 

liberal institutions along tribal lines that 

are constantly challenged by a crippling 

extremist insurgency (Schaeffer, 2016). 

Liberals did not anticipate the rise of 

radical states. Progressive movements 

came into the picture to challenge the 

central tenets and the universal appeal of 

liberal values. Iraq to this day is still 

marred by lawless violence, a 

consequence of a failed Western 

experiment that insists on a brand of 

democracy that the Iraqi people find alien 

to their own way of life. 

The political struggles in the 

second half of the past century have 

become the stress test for Marxist theory. 

The idea of hegemony points beyond its 

Marxist interpretation. History cannot be 

dissolved as some of form a totality 

(Laclau and Mouffe, 2001). In fact, the 

homogenous way of understanding the 



86  The Radical Politics of Nation-States 
 

 

struggles in the peripheries of society 

should be rejected. Our historical situation 

says that we have to look beyond the 

grandeur of liberal concepts. Modern 

society and capitalism are in such a 

quandary that the rich-versus-poor divide 

is no longer sufficient to understand the 

complexities of modern day politics. We 

need to underscore the relevance of 

culture and history to unveil the solid 

reasons behind the emergence of 

progressive styles of governance in the 

world that appear to eschew established 

political norms. 

The Radical Politics of Nation-States 

Chantal Mouffe’s The Return of the 

Political is an important work in which she 

explains the distinction between politics 

and the political. For her, politics is 

concerned with structures and institutions 

while the political refers to the reality of 

conflicts in socio-political relations. 

Radical democracy does not presuppose 

any moral position but rightly 

distinguishes the political from the moral. 

Mouffe thinks that conflict is the 

unavoidable characteristic of the political. 

In this sense, agonistic politics is 

grounded in the belief that society is not a 

uniform set of identities. While citizens 

desire to achieve the common good 

through a shared vision, the reality is that 

there are hierarchical differences in the 

polity. 

Deliberative democracy suggests 

that human reason should be operative 

and foundational in the conduct of the 

affairs of the state. Consensus is viewed as 

the basis for the possibility of harmony in 

society. But the idea of social harmony is 

ironical since it is the dominant majority 

that often imposes its will. This implies 

the permanence of dissension or 

disagreement (Mouffe, 1995). The 

powerful sees as a necessary birthing pain 

the sacrifice of the people to achieve a 

certain form of socio-political order. But 

the idea of a consensus is no more than a 

cover up for the protection of the self-

serving interests of the elite. For instance, 

Indigenous Peoples (IP) in the Philippines 

have been displaced and many are forced 

out of their ancestral homes due to 

extractive mining activities (Ty, 2010). 

Mouffe (1995) thinks that modern 

liberalism failed to recognize the value of 

the political. Social cooperation for liberals 

is rooted in a neutral starting point. But 

the vision of a well-ordered society is no 

more than a theoretical innovation. 

Liberals seem to suggest that conflicts can 

be done away with through a negotiating 

process (Mouffe, 1995). However, Mouffe 

(1993) says that any well-ordered society 

does not leave enough space for 

disagreement. In contrast, there is a need 

to imagine conflict as a condition for 

establishing pluralism in society (Mouffe, 

1993). 

Radical democracy embodies the 

politics of nation-states. Tom Nairn and 

Paul James (2005) explain that ethno-

nationalism emanates from small-town 

narratives. The tension in nation states 

necessitates leaders to act as martyrs for 

the people. Macario Sakay is a primary 

example (Ochosa, 2005). The colonial 



Journal of ASEAN Studies  87 
 

 

government had labeled him a bandit. The 

reality was that the revolutionary simply 

continued the fight against the Americans. 

The story of Miguel Malvar, for instance, 

reveals that an interesting trait of heroes is 

that as a leader they have acted like a 

father-figure whose main task was to 

protect the people (Ochosa, 2005). In such 

a context, local folks find the soul of their 

community by way of blood ties. 

Given a unique culture, history, 

and belief system, a nation-state is bound 

to form its own conception of the good. 

Thus, the politics of nation-states defies a 

common logic (Mouffe, 1995). For 

example, a leader like Duterte would 

demand that no foreign country should 

interfere in his decisions. It is for this 

reason that he is perceived as 

unconventional. Duterte’s unprecedented 

pivot to China and his open admiration of 

the kind of leader that Vladimir Putin is 

do not mean that he wants to be 

influenced by those two world figures. 

Rather, his move is an act of defiance from 

the established global order. 

The prevailing international 

human rights regime, which is liberal in 

scope and practice, appears to have no 

impact on Duterte’s frame of mind. 

Duterte’s radicalism translates to divisive 

policy decisions. But Duterte, it can be 

argued, does not oppose the universal 

concept of human rights, although he 

thinks that protecting the lives of the 

people is on top of his agenda. Duterte has 

not categorically said that he wants to do 

away with due process. What he has 

suggested during his speeches was that 

the police have the right to defend 

themselves if there is a threat to their lives 

in their pursuit of criminals. 

But the mystique in Duterte’s style 

of leadership indicate how he has 

effectively captured the imagination of the 

majority of the Filipino people. Duterte is 

paradoxical because while he is accused of 

violating human rights, people continue to 

believe in his cause of protecting the 

public from hardened criminals. Although 

he curses prominent personalities, 

including Pope Francis, the 

predominantly Catholic country has not 

wavered in their support for Duterte’s 

tough approach to politics and 

governance. Duterte has plenty of critics 

who point out the controversial 

appointments of some personalities to 

official posts, but the president popularity 

has not waned because he has also 

instantly fired public officials who are 

allegedly involved in corruption. He is 

accused of machismo, but he remains 

endeared to women in his sorties because 

of his ability to charm his way into the 

hearts and minds of the masses. 

Modern politics cannot be dictated 

by absolute norms. Modern democracy 

cannot be limited to rational discourse 

(Mouffe, 1995). Modern societies 

recognize the right of the people to 

express dissent against the government. 

The crowd in street protests are 

considered as part of informal democratic 

interactions. Politics goes beyond 

parliamentary deliberations. Alan 

Finlayson (2009, pp.13) says that while 

modern democracy reveals the 



88  The Radical Politics of Nation-States 
 

 

“accommodation of various identities and 

interests,” the reality is that “radical 

democracy emphasizes how these are 

permanently contested in ways that 

transform them.” 

Reynaldo Silvestre (2016) says that, 

“Mr. Duterte is radical because, as 

empirically defined, he opposes the 

established political structure, wholly or 

partly.” Laclau and Mouffe (1985) argue 

that radical democracy is dependent on 

difference-politics. The Filipino people 

agonize from the inequalities in the socio-

political and economic structures of the 

country. Many do not see hope. His 

supporters think that only Duterte can 

defy the powers-that-be stationed in the 

capital. Silvestre (2016) says that it is 

Duterte who “opposes a unitary and 

highly centralized political structure that 

had crafted myopic public policies.” 

Silvestre (2016) points out that the 

radicalism of Duterte is “a deliberate and 

persistent thrust toward a qualitative 

change in the socio-political status quo.” 

Disruptive Politics and Personalistic 

Leadership 

Duterte has been criticized for 

targeting human rights, freedom of the 

press, and the Catholic Church. The 

president appears to be obliterating his 

opposition. Sen. Leila de Lima, a vocal 

critic, is in jail. Supreme Court Chief 

Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, an appointee 

of the past administration, was booted out 

from office in a quo warranto case. Indeed, 

Duterte’s brand of politics is perceived as 

nothing short of being disruptive. The 

Philippine president disdains protocols 

and veers away from the established 

traditions of the office. Mustafa Dikec 

(2017) says that disruptive politics is not 

only for the sake of disruption. Disruption 

is necessary in the attempt to question the 

status quo. 

Duterte’s presidential campaign 

capitalized on the failures of the Aquino 

government. By exacerbating the suffering 

of the people during Typhoon Yolanda 

due to his impersonal approach, President 

Aquino just showed proof of his inept and 

weak leadership. In contrast, as one of the 

earliest to go to Tacloban City, Duterte 

presented himself as the hope of the 

people. Duterte was seen as a caring 

father figure. This highlighted the 

incompetence of the former 

administration. Such complemented the 

feelings of disillusionment in the minds of 

many Filipinos. 

In fact, Duterte’s personalistic 

leadership has become a legend to many 

who idolize him. What is the source of the 

Duterte legend? First, his popularity may 

be anchored in his boldness in addressing 

the problem of criminality. He has 

threatened drug personalities in public 

when he was mayor. Duterte views the 

world using lenses that have an impact in 

the mindset of the people. For him, the 

duty of a leader remains singular – to 

protect public order. The ethical way, it 

appears, is not part of his political 

equation. For the majority who knows the 

troubles of Philippine democracy, it is the 

political will of a leader that matters. 

President Aquino lacked courage. In a 



Journal of ASEAN Studies  89 
 

 

country that is wanting in discipline, 

Duterte succeeded in presenting himself 

as the true champion of law and order. 

Second, the development of Davao 

City reflects the huge confidence of the 

public in Duterte. Between 1980 and 1986, 

the city was a picture of chaos and a 

violent insurgency. Duterte changed this 

situation when he became mayor. Duterte 

promised that he can also achieve the 

same result for the whole country. 

Deterring criminals is one of the 

instruments that the president thinks will 

bring discipline and public order. Davao’s 

story is not a miracle. It is a product of 

strong leadership and the kind of 

discipline that Duterte inculcated in the 

local population. Duterte’s governance 

centered only on one thing – his peace and 

order campaign. But while this is the case, 

Davao has since achieved real progress 

and development. For Duterte, the job of a 

politician is not to be a preacher. 

Religious critics say that Duterte is 

terrorizing the poor. The Catholic 

Church’s opposition to his “War on 

Drugs” is grounded on the claim that 

many of the victims of summary 

executions belong to the poor. According 

to Fr. Daniel Franklin Pilario (2017, 

pp.160), “the only cries we hear are the 

wailing of mothers, widows, and children 

as they see the bodies of their beloved 

now bloodied and lifeless.” Fr. Pilario is 

expressing the pain felt by the victims of 

summary executions, most of whom lived 

in poor neighborhoods. Extra-judicial 

killings are wrong, but the victims remain 

voiceless because they are stricken with 

the fear of more violence. The poor, Fr. 

Pilario (2017) continues, “painfully suffers 

in silence.” Still, the president has 

remained unperturbed. He even vowed to 

pursue a relentless campaign against 

illegal drugs. 

In another front, Duterte is also 

waging war against the country’s 

oligarchs. It seems to be the case that the 

traditional elite in the capital are shocked 

by the unpredictability of Duterte. The 

president has challenged prominent 

individuals. He has forced big time tax 

evaders like Mighty Corporation to settle 

its obligation amounting to thirty billion 

pesos, the biggest tax settlement ever in 

the country’s history. Hence, the trust and 

confidence of the Filipino people in 

Duterte remain high because they think 

that he delivers on his promises. 

The problem is that the critics of 

the president express things without 

realizing that their judgments appear to be 

impositions of standards that are bred in 

the West. Such is ignorant of the history 

and context that local folks share. 

Moralizing the political is tantamount to 

painting a homogenous world order that 

is overly dependent on Western 

rationalizations. It disregards the reality 

that such external standards also preclude 

people from determining the importance 

of their communal values. While ideals 

and universal values are good on paper, 

the reality on the ground is different given 

the context of culture and history that 

people are situated in. 

In the politics of nation-states, it is 

critical to see how local folks have 



90  The Radical Politics of Nation-States 
 

 

interacted with their own leaders. The 

social bond is stronger. The relation 

between the leader and his constituents is 

beyond the formality of public discourse. 

For example, Duterte deals directly with 

ordinary people, goes to the wakes of 

fallen soldiers, and uses a language that 

the common tao (human person) can 

understand. Western-bred politicians are 

impersonal. But local politics is always 

personal. The people’s deep sense of 

belonging naturally arises from the 

solidarity within one’s group. This type of 

unity often ignites the drive that 

characterizes the quest for self-

determination. 

There is resistance to the licentious 

approach of Duterte. However, local 

context is important to demonstrate 

Duterte’s disruptive style. Millions of 

Filipinos have long been repressed by an 

old order that continues to ignore the 

plight of the poor. It is not just the rising 

middle class that pushed Duterte’s 

prominence to a higher level prior to the 

national elections. Rather, it is the failure 

of the second Aquino administration to 

recognize the just demands of ordinary 

Filipinos that paved the way for all the 

troubles that we find in contemporary 

Philippine politics. 

The unique feature of politics in 

nation-states, including the traditions and 

cultures in which societies are embedded, 

encourages people to believe that 

democracy should embrace difference. 

This is the only way for Philippine society 

to escape the totalizing gaze of an 

oppressive political order that is rooted in 

its colonial history. Decentering politics 

necessitates the collapse of the present 

political terrain. As a leader, Duterte is 

unafraid of the repercussions of his 

decisions to his future in office. This type 

of aggressiveness renders the judgment 

that the president is in fact sincere in his 

desire to change the course of the nation’s 

fate. Filipinos trust the president because 

they have been fed up by a rotten system 

that only caters to the elite but has 

deprived the ordinary citizen the 

opportunity to enjoy one’s entitlements 

and socio-economic rights. 

Tracing the Root of the Bangsamoro 

Problem 

The rebellion in the Bangsamoro 

must be differentiated from the Philippine 

Revolution. In fact, according to Orlino 

Ochosa, the revolution against Spain “was 

national and democratic in form but not in 

outlook since the leadership was 

predominantly middle-class Tagalog” 

(Ochosa 2005, pp.11). The unity in early 

Philippine society was an alien thing. But 

it was not the Filipinos who caused this 

social fragmentation. The Spaniards 

imposed their “divide and conquer” rule 

to serve their selfish colonial goals. The 

“Magdalo” and “Magdiwang” faction of 

the Katipunan was a clear example, with 

the ilustrado Emilio Aguinaldo ordering 

the execution of Andres Bonifacio, the 

founder of the Katipunan, who was a masa 

(common folk). 

The Americans instituted a 

patronage system that created the division 

between national and provincial elites. As 



Journal of ASEAN Studies  91 
 

 

a result, the centralized government that 

Americans instituted guaranteed the 

domination of the Tagalogs in Manila. 

This created not only the rich-versus-poor 

or elite-versus-masses dichotomy, but also 

a profound Christian-Muslim divide. For 

Salah Jubair (2007, pp.9) the truth was that 

the “Philippine government refuses to 

solve the problem in Muslim Mindanao to 

the satisfaction of the Moros because most 

of the implementers do not have 

sympathy for the Moros.” 

The series of events that led to the 

outbreak of the war in Mindanao all 

started with the 1968 Jabidah Massacre 

(Gloria, 2014). In the island of Corregidor, 

a group of young Muslim military trainees 

in the Armed Forces of the Philippines 

were executed by their comrades after 

protesting the non-payment of their 

monthly allowance. Recruited by then 

President Marcos for a clandestine plan to 

infiltrate Sabah, the murders ignited the 

political feelings of Muslim Filipinos. 

Despite the reality of being neglected by 

Manila, Filipino Muslims had no prior 

interest in politics. For Jubair (2007), many 

Muslim Filipinos in Mindanao carry 

profound grievances against the 

government. He says that “when the very 

survival of the Moros was threatened by 

this ‘ethnic cleansing’ they were forced to 

react, organize and fight back to survive, 

which later shaped into a revolutionary 

struggle with ideology, political and 

military machinery.” (Jubair, 2007, pp.10). 

Abhoud Shed Lingga (2015) says 

that Muslim leaders think that Mindanao 

should have been excluded from the 

Treaty of Paris because the Spaniards have 

never subjugated the island. Renato 

Constantino (1974) explains that the 

isolation of Muslim Mindanao allowed it 

to preserve its local culture and religion. 

He also points out that “throughout the 

Spanish occupation, the Muslims were not 

considered part of the developing society 

and was treated a foreign territory” 

(Constantino, 1974, pp.6). Francisco Lara 

Jr. (2015) writes that before the Spanish 

colonizers arrived in the country and 

attempted to conquer Mindanao, the 

region has already been under the control 

of Muslim sultanates. 

The political and social division in 

Mindanao is rooted in the exclusion of the 

Bangsamoro. Muslim Filipinos resent their 

poverty (Rasul, 2007). The Muslim 

Filipinos have persisted in their struggle 

for political freedom (Lara, 2015). Past 

administrations have failed to find a 

lasting solution to the Bangsamoro 

problem. The subjugation of Muslim 

Filipinos continues because the majority 

benefits from the socio-economic divide. 

In this sense, the unity in the Bangsamoro 

has become so elusive, “even if that unity 

is meant to refer only to unity in 

overarching purpose, not organizational 

structure” (Ferrer, 2015, pp.126). 

The rural South in the country 

often yields a sad picture of a mansion 

that is surrounded by shanties whose 

occupants live in dire or abject misery. 

Such has become the image of the 

economic and political backwardness of 

the Bangsamoro for decades. Millions 

have remained poor due to the 



92  The Radical Politics of Nation-States 
 

 

malevolence of social and political 

domination (Maboloc, 2017). For the 

people in Manila, the Bangsamoro is 

nothing but a breeding ground for 

terrorist organizations like the ASG. 

Wataru Kusaka (2017) says that the 

president’s strong appeal among Muslims 

is evidenced by his timely call to 

recognize the rights of Muslims as the 

original inhabitants of Mindanao. 

The economic injustices committed 

against Muslims is apparent in view of the 

inability of the national government to 

allocate enough resources for the basic 

services of the people. In this regard, the 

struggle for recognition is a question of 

how a historical wrong can be corrected 

by means of radical leadership. 

Recognizing the rights of Muslim Filipinos 

means that the state must enact laws that 

support their welfare – sufficient income, 

enough food, and decent shelter. 

Discrimination silences the 

capacity of human beings to expand their 

freedoms and live the kind of life they 

value. The prejudice against Muslim 

Filipinos means that the youth in Basilan 

and Maguindanao have lesser chances or 

nothing to attain a life that is truly worth 

living. Being hopeless, some young 

Muslims are forced to take up arms to 

rebel against the government or join 

extremist groups. Duterte hopes to reform 

the old social dynamics in a radical way 

by spending his political capital exorcising 

the evil spirit of a colonial past. 

The root of the Bangsamoro 

problem, thus, is historical injustice. The 

Bangsamoro Organic Law, which has been 

approved recently, is meant to rectify the 

mistakes of the past. It sets aside a block 

grant of 100 billion pesos. The law is 

anchored on the concept of wealth sharing 

and self-rule. Duterte is determined to 

give Muslim Mindanao their genuine 

autonomy, including the power to control 

and exploit the natural resources in the 

territory. Shariah courts will also be 

recognized, giving Muslim Filipinos the 

right to pursue the administration of their 

own justice system, subject to limits set in 

the Philippine Constitution. 

Strong Leader, Weak Institutions 

Duterte inherited a position that 

was hungry for someone with the bravery 

to determine the destiny of a people 

weakened by regional divide, 

hopelessness, and confusion. The 

president thus emerged as a strong leader 

who is afraid of nothing. Nations that are 

former colonies often suffer from the 

stigma of an extractive economic system 

that has impoverished the lives of the 

people. The Philippines falls fittingly into 

that description. Given this, in the minds 

of many, someone who has the will to do 

what is necessary to dismantle systemic 

injustices is the kind of leader that people 

need. 

But the problem of Philippine 

democracy is not just a question of 

leadership. For the longest time, Filipinos 

have been deprived of their sense of 

identity, having been subjected to colonial 

rule. The vast majority do not control their 

future. The oligarchs and political elite 

define for the people the meaning of their 



Journal of ASEAN Studies  93 
 

 

existence. A poor child born in the 

province is forced to think that human 

poverty is a no more than a curse. The 

lack of inclusiveness in the domain of the 

public sphere means that people are 

powerless. 

The point is that focusing on 

Duterte’s personality glosses over the real 

issue that the Filipino people has to face – 

their lack of unity. Of course, a society 

should be able to determine how it can 

benefit from the political will of a leader. 

Duterte has a huge appeal because the 

Philippines as a country needs discipline. 

This lack of discipline may be partly 

blamed on colonial history. But if the 

country must inoculate its future 

generations from the ignominy of the past, 

then it must pursue institutional reforms 

collectively. 

Strong leaders appear to be 

necessary because institutions are weak 

and undemocratic. When dysfunction is 

entrenched in the bureaucracy, the 

inefficiency of the government system is 

no more than a reflection of the 

pervasiveness of structural inequalities. It 

is of course wrong to say that Duterte’s 

alleged lack of decorum has no impact in 

the moral lives of the people. But any 

analysis must move beyond Duterte’s 

persona. Political commitments can be 

shattered by some contingent interests 

anytime. The primary duty of citizens is to 

strengthen the basic structure if as a 

society they so desire to serve the ends of 

justice.  

 

Conclusion 

Let us draw some conclusions. The 

first has something to do with terrorism 

and its relation to politics. Terrorism has 

arrived upon Philippine shores in part 

due to the Muslim insurgency. But if the 

Filipino people were to confront it, then 

beyond the need for strong leadership 

which Duterte has shown in his resolve to 

quell the Maute rebellion, it is necessary to 

uproot the consciousness of the people 

from the desire for homogeneity. 

Following the analysis of Mouffe, a 

universal moral order will only bring 

more problems. 

The second has something to do 

with the meaning of democracy. 

Democratic institutions are never perfect. 

Duterte is seen as the kind of leader that 

Filipinos need. The context of post-

colonial politics in the country is 

important. For Duterte, the protection of 

the public is what the common good is all 

about. The problem, in this regard, is not 

the vitriolic language of the president. 

While the country is a communitarian 

society, it can be argued that institutional 

mechanisms to political reform must 

remain relevant. 

The third suggests that people 

cannot overestimate the value of 

consensus and it is wrong to 

underestimate the reality of conflict and 

antagonism. Radical democracy insists 

that people must be emancipated from the 

dictates of cultural hegemony, which is 

the original intent of Laclau and Mouffe. 

The Western point of view cannot and 

must not dictate how local folks are to 



94  The Radical Politics of Nation-States 
 

 

determine the political values that they 

embrace. These are intangible things that 

people share by reason of history and 

blood ties. Radical politics, in this way, is 

historically rooted. 

The fourth concerns the struggles 

of the Bangsamoro. Duterte is in an 

opportune time to be able to advance the 

interest of Mindanao and finally liberate it 

from the claws of Manila’s imperial rule. 

The domination of the Muslims by the 

Christian majority is obvious. Massive 

poverty plagues the people in the 

Bangsamoro. The historical context of 

Mindanao cannot be put aside. Mindanao 

was not subjugated by foreign rulers. 

Duterte knows that such plays a crucial 

role in understanding the importance and 

purpose of his radical leadership. 

Lastly, weak leaders, as shown by 

the failures of President Aquino, are 

disastrous for any society. Charismatic 

leaders have firm commitments to a cause. 

The antagonistic nature of politics may be 

disruptive by nature, but such is necessary 

to achieve concrete changes in the lives of 

the people. The radical means of Duterte 

appear to be non-negotiable. But the 

bigger challenge lies in the fact that to 

sustain meaningful transformations under 

the present administration, institutional 

reforms should be seriously pursued. 

About the Author 

Dr. Christopher Ryan Maboloc is 

an associate professor of philosophy at the 

Ateneo de Davao University, Philippines. 

He holds a doctorate degree in 

philosophy, maxima cum laude, from the 

University of San Carlos, Cebu City. He 

obtained his Master’s in Applied Ethics 

from Linkoping University in Sweden and 

the Norwegian University of Science and 

Technology. He was trained in Democracy 

and Governance at the Konrad Adenauer 

Stiftung (KAS) in Bonn and Berlin, 

Germany.  

Acknowledgment 

This article is supported by the 

University Research Council of the Ateneo 

de Davao University. The author wishes 

to thank Fr. Joel Tabora, SJ, university 

president and Dr. Lourdesita Sobrevega-

Chan, chair of URC. 

References 

Basallajes, M. and Dejito, J. (2018). 

“Interview with Datu Bago 

Awardee Karl Gaspar.” Davao 

Today. March 18. Retrieved from 

http://davaotoday.com/main/dava

o-city/qa-karl-gaspar-mindanao-

duterte/ 

Bergen, P. (2011). The Longest War: The 

Enduring Conflict between Al Qaeda 

and America. New York: Free Press. 

Constantino, R. (1974). The Philippines: A 

Past Revisited. Manila: Tala 

Publishing.  

Dikec, M. (2017). Disruptive Politics. 

Urban Studies. (Volume 54, 

Number 1), 49-54. DOI 

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0042098

016671476 



Journal of ASEAN Studies  95 
 

 

Ferrer, M. (2015). Forging a Peace 

Settlement for the Bangsamoro. In 

Hotchcroft, P. (Ed.), Mindanao: The 

Long Road to Peace and Prosperity 

(99-131). Manila: Anvil. 

Fonbuena, C. (October 11, 2017). Marawi 

Death Toll Reaches 1,000. Rappler. 

Retrieved from https://www.rapp 

ler.com/nation/184967-marawi-dea 

th-toll-over-thousand  

Fotion, N. (2004). What is Terrorism? In 

Primoratz, I. (Ed.), Terrorism: The 

Philosophical Issues (44-54). New 

York: Palgrave-Macmillan. 

Finlayson, A. (2009). Rhetoric and Radical 

Democratic Theory. In Little, A. 

and Moya, M. (Eds) The Politics of 

Radical Democracy (13-32). 

Edinburg: Edinburg University 

Press. 

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History 

and the Last Man. New York: Avon 

Books. 

Gloria, H. (2014). History from the South. 

Davao City: Research and 

Publication Office-Ateneo de 

Davao University.  

Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of 

Civilization and the Remaking of 

World Order. New York: Simon and 

Schuster. 

Jubair, S. (2007). The Long Road to Peace. 

Davao City: Institute of 

Bangsamoro Studies. 

Kusaka, W. (2017). “Bandit grabbed the 

State: Duterte’s Moral Politics.” 

Philippine Sociological Review 

(Volume 65), 49-75.  

Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (2001). 

Hegemony and Social Strategy. New 

York: Verso Books. 

Laqueur, W. (1987). The Age of Terrorism. 

Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 

Lara, Jr., F. (2015). Insurgents, Clans, and 

States: Political Legitimacy and 

Resurgent Conflict. Quezon City: 

Ateneo de Manila Press. 

Lingga, A.  S. (2015). Building the 

Bangsamoro Government. In 

Hotchcroft, P. (Ed.). Mindanao: The 

Long Road to Peace and Prosperity 

(133-157). Manila: Anvil. 

Maboloc, C. R. (2017). Situating the 

Mindanao Agenda in the Radical 

Politics of President Duterte. Iqra: 

Journal of the Al Qalam Institute for 

Islamic Identities and Dialogue in 

Southeast Asia (Volume 4), 3-24.  

Mouffe, C. (1995). Liberalism and Modern 

Democracy. In Carens, J. (Ed). 

Democracy and Possessive 

Individualism. New York: SUNY 

Press. 

Mouffe, C. (2009). The Limits of John 

Rawls’ Pluralism. Theoria (Volume 

56, Number 118), 1-14. 

Nairn, T. and James, P. (2005). Global 

Matrix: Nationalism, Globalism and 

Terrorism. London: Pluto Books. 



96  The Radical Politics of Nation-States 
 

 

Ochosa, O. (2005). Bandoleros: Outlawed 

Guerrillas of the Philippine-American 

War. Manila: New Day Publishers. 

Pilario, D. (2017). “Praying Bodies, Dying 

Bodies: A Reflection on the 

Nazareno and the Sto. Nino.” 

Philippine Sociological Review 

Volume 65: 155-161. 

Rafael, V. (2016, November 12). Duterte, 

war maker. Philippine Daily 

Inquirer, Opinion, A12. Retrieved 

from http://opinion.inquirer.net/99 

159/duterte-war-maker  

Schaeffer, R. (2016). Understanding 

Globalization. Lanham: Rowman 

and Littlefield.  

Silvestre, R. (2016, October 1). Duterte’s 

Radicalism. Philippine Daily 

Inquirer, Opinion, A12. Retrieved 

from http://opinion.inquirer.net/97 

803/dutertes-radicalism. 

Taylor, G. (2010). The New Political 

Sociology. London: Palgrave 

Macmillan. 

Ty, R. (2010). Indigenous Peoples in the 

Philippines: A Continuing Struggle. 

Retrieved from 

https://www.hurights.or.jp/archive

s/focus/section2/2010/12/indigenou

s-peoples-in-the-philippines-conti 

nuing-struggle.html