Transcript of the Interview of Dr. Christopher Ryan Maboloc on his Radical Democracy project by VSU professor Beljsus Enaya
This is the transcript of the Interview of Dr. Christopher Ryan Maboloc on his radical democracy project by VSU professor Beljsus Enaya. In 2017, Dr. Maboloc was awarded a research grant by Ateneo de Davao University. The research has produced several papers published in Scopus-indexed journals. He presented his research at Nagoya University in Japan in 2018. Dr. Maboloc also edited a special issue on Duterte in the SES Journal of Applied Philosophy and the 7th SES Conference was dedicated to the theme radical democracy. Dr, Maboloc was awarded the Public Intellectual Prize by the Philosophical Association of the Philippines in 2020.
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:
1. What motivates you in defending the Duterte regime?
That is a misunderstanding. I am not defending Duterte. I am explaining why politics in Ph is contested. Also, I object to the use of the word "regime." It is a loaded term.
2. Why are there fewer Filipino philosophical thinkers who, like you, have the same or better position in explicating Duterte's politics?
Researchers write on the basis of their expertise and how they see things. To answer your question, Rey Ileto's Knowledge and Pacification provides the right historical narrative with respect to my thesis on Duterte's role in the type of politics we find in the Philippines today, e.g. pivot to China, the anti-American sentiment or Duterte's resistance to US interference, and Wataru Kusaka in terms of the moral divide in the history of this country, which he calls, "moral politics."
3. Why do you choose Chantal Mouffe's radical politics in arguing your position on Duterte's politics and in answering your critics?
Migs Mansueto sent me good materials on agonistic politics. Given the nature of the moral divide in the country, radical democracy contextualizes post-colonial politics in Ph. I explained in my UST talk, for instance, that the Philippine Revolution was lost because of the disunity of Filipinos. The leaders of the revolt (who belonged to the upper class of society) wanted to capitulate while the ordinary Katipuneros desired to continue the struggle. We lost because the upper class dictated the outcome of the revolt.
4. Aside from Mouffe, do you have other political thinkers who inspire/support your position?
My background in political theory is Rawls. He is ground zero when it comes to contemporary political theory. Radical democracy is a critique of the liberal reformist approach that banks on agreement and consensus. Such a strategy, however, misses the reality of structural injustice. It assumes that all people are homogenous in terms of their rationalizations. In the politics of nation-states, the starting point cannot be the desire for a well-ordered society, but conflict and antagonism. In this way, the works of Kusaka, Gaspar, and Rey Ileto are important when it comes to understanding radical politics.
5. There seems to be the same argument on radical politics in most of your papers on Duterte politics. Why do you think there is a need to push the same argument in different journals?
Not the same argument but the same position on various issues. My position is that Duterte's rise to power is due to the failures of EDSA. It is about context. For instance, my work in IQRA focused on Mindanao, the first Journal of ASEAN Studies (JAS) article used the Marawi siege, the second JAS article explains that we are still a predatory state, and the one published by the Journal of General Studies in Malaysia is about Duterte's fight with the oligarchs. There is one that Sage has yet to release and it is about Duterte's conflict with the Church.
6. How do you describe Benjiemen Labastin's position in relation to your position?
Benjie has analyzed my work diligently. Truth to tell, he read the right materials. Migs Mansueto has also written about my work. He is actually more radical in terms of position and is quite well-versed when it comes to Philippine history. Nathan Quimpo is right in explaining the contested nature of Philippine democracy. But to my mind, Duterte makes manifest this reality. The more other scholars disagree with my position, the more they are proving my point.
And Randy David's position to your argument?
I read and am actually inspired by Prof. David's columns. Things would have been much more interesting if Conrado de Quiros were writing. I, myself, published 100+ commentaries in PDI. Prof David's position is centered on his criticism of Duterte. Mine is about radical politics. I do not disagree with Prof. David. What I am saying is that I am trying to describe how we have arrived to this point. When it comes to the issue on the West Philippine Sea, what is apparent is our lack of a unified position. It is to China's advantage, not ours.
7. You understand Karl Gaspar's position well on Duterte's politics. How do you reconcile these contrasting methods in the realm of radical politics?
Bro. Karl is a friend of mine and an inspiration. He understands my position and respects my opinion. Scholars should be like that. We disagree intellectually but personal relationships should not get in the way of our work. Karl expressed in the beginning high hopes for the administration. But one has to realize that there is no way of getting out of the patronage system in our political culture. There are gains on one level but there are also missteps along the way.
8. How do you deal with the reactions of your critics on your thoughts on Duterte and radical politics?
A lot of people do not like my position. They also do not like me because of my acerbic personality. But you get nowhere in life if you fear criticism.
9. Filipino philosophers in Metro Manila is largely silent about the Duterte regime. What do you think is the reason for this?
They are not silent. Academia is actually critical of Duterte. I am critical of some in academia sometimes because they refuse to see what is obvious - elitism in society. But the position of most scholars in Manila is expected. It is also befitting of their status in the hegemonic relation among Filipinos. The academe is not exempt. Power is not about any place or position. You can talk of Imperial Davao in the same manner as you can talk of Imperial Manila. Duterte simply changed the configuration of power.
10. Were you able to see the negative side of Duterte's presidency?
The second JAS article deals with that. The Sage article, to be published come 2022 in a US-based Journal, shows the deep conflict between Duterte and the Catholic Church, Indeed, it would have been easier to go with the flow and follow the lead of scholars in Manila whose sentiment is anti-Duterte. But no, if I did just that, I would be doing a disservice to my nation. We cannot allow a dominant narrative to absolutely define the dignity of our nation.
11. How should Filipino philosophy engage with politics?
"Back to the rough grounds," to use the words of Fr. Danny Pilario. Well, to be honest, there are many talented young scholars in the Visayas and Mindanao. Manila will remain to be at the center, but bright minds can move from place to place. Mindanao is way behind in terms of scholarship. It is high time that we provide the opportunity for these young minds to flourish. The universe is wide and we all have our proper place in it. Given the right motives, we can all grow and contribute to the intellectual progress of this nation.
12. What do you think is the future of Filipino philosophy?
I remember Dr. Ramon Reyes suggesting in a lecture that philosophy can be rooted in a system or a tradition. In our case, the thinker who comes to mind is Leonardo Mercado, then there was Rolando Gripaldo and now, Professor Demeterio and Professor Mabaquiao. Personally though, I have doubts if there is a Filipino philosophy. Philosophy, to me, is about a universal claim to knowledge, which can be expressed through various systems or shown in different contexts. I also doubt if it is really necessary to pursue a distinctly Filipino way of thinking for what matters in the end is the meaning of human experience. To my mind, Karl Gaspar is a philosopher, but he does not need to make that claim that his is a Filipino philosophy.