The election of Donald Trump and Rodrigo Duterte, as well as Brexit—and, if I may add, the result of the Colombian referendum on the peace process—are results that might confuse a lot of people who believe that democracy is the best way of making decisions—whethering leaders or adopting policies. But the vote for Trump and Duterte is less about choosing them as leaders than it is a protest vote against the system. The system has not really served the interests of the majority, and they believe they have been excluded from mainstream politics. The parties and the elites that used to serve them seem to have created a big distance between them and the ordinary people.
While they leaders like Trump or Duterte, or they may opt to leave the EU, it’s less about choosing the leaders than it is a scathing rebuke of the system. It’s not really a problem of democracy per se, but are these the politicians and elites who thought they have democracy on their side all the time. Consulting the people is something they should do, but they’re currently not sensitive to the needs of the people. I think this is a protest against the people who are currently on top of the system rather than a criticism against democracy.


Q2. Has traditional representative democracy failed? If it has, why has it failed? If it has not, how would you explain the rise of Trump and Duterte and the Brexit?

There is no one model of democracy—there are different kinds around the world. Democracy is a system that evolves through time. A lot of the democracies that we have in place are what I call more electoral or representative democracies. We have some liberal democracies, but liberalism is currently under retreat. There are a lot of people who feel that liberalism as an ideology has not served its purpose. So what is happening with the entry of politicians like Trump and Duterte is that it questions the continued viability of representative democracy, but not necessarily democracy.
Maybe there are other models of democracy that somehow respond to people’s needs and aspirations. A lot of these alternative models of democracy can be found in Latin America, where you have leaders who rely less on traditional parties but instead more directly engage citizens. Examples would include Bolivia and Ecuador, where they have what we would call participatory democracy, meaning they think people should get involved more rather than just rely on parties to do everything for the people.


Q3. If people and their non-traditional representatives, rather than so-called mainstream politicians, decide foreign policy, what would be its implications for peace and cooperation worldwide and / or in Asia?

Foreign policy requires a lot of predictability and consistency. If you have leaders like Trump and Duterte, who keep making spontaneous remarks and do not really consult experts and people who have experience with foreign policy, it may not be good for the promotion of peace because a peace agenda is a long-term agenda that requires a lot of planning. Peace is something that needs to be accomplished through a long period. However, some leaders like Trump and Duterte, given that they don’t rely on other people, they could make very drastic decisions.
But, that unpredictability may help certain types of peace promotion. For example, President Duterte is very seriously considering pursuing peace with all the groups in the country, including Muslims and Communists. It is very rare for a president in the Philippines—sometimes they go just with the Muslims or just with the Communists. Now that there is a lot of conflict with the Muslims and the Communists, you can have a very spontaneous president taking a very serious decision. He even said there can never be peace if we don’t talk to all groups. Traditional parties tend to side with only certain groups and not others—they have their allies. But outsider politicians like Duterte doesn’t have any favorite group. He sees them all the same. If you only have peace with only certain groups, the others could become spoilers of the peace.


[On Peace]

Q1. How can scholars and researchers contribute to peace promotion?

Scholars and researchers have a very important role to play in the promotion of peace. They are producers of knowledge and of accurate research that could be used as basis for policy. A lot of our political leaders don’t know what is happening on the ground. It is researchers and scholars who really think hard and go to the grassroots, ask people, and consult with various groups on how they think peace could be pursued. Whether it is in their writing or in engaging with the government, they can be a tremendous help informing politicians that these are the realities—that past policies might not be working and that you need to do some refinements or modifications. But peace promotion is something that scholars need to do—it’s important not just to do research, but to do research that is policy-oriented. That means that as a scholar you don’t just publish, but you make sure that the policies from your research are clearly communicated to decision-makers.


Q2. What do you think of promoting peace by educating the public and the next generations?

The Colombian peace process seems to illustrate the importance of educating the public—of letting them know why it is important to pursue peace, as well as what are the benefits as well as the costs. That is something that needs to be communicated and framed in a language that ordinary people can understand. It should start early it should not just be when people are already adults. To ensure that the next generation will have peace in its consciousness, it’s very important for them to be educated at the earliest level possible. That is the only way that peace could be lasting and sustained.


* Prof. Aries A. ARUGAY is a professor of University of the Philippines Diliman.

Prof. Aries A. ARUGAY addressed the reason for and meaning of recent unexpected outcomes of popular votes, namely the elections of Donald Trump in the United States and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines as president. He explained that the decisions are less about choosing leaders than they are a protest vote against the system. The majority of voters in these countries believe they have been excluded from mainstream politics. Rather than viewing this as the failure of democracy, Prof. ARUGAY suggested looking at other types of democracies around the world. There is no one model of democracy, he said, but rather there are different kinds around the world. A lot of these alternative models of democracy can be found in Latin America, where you have leaders who rely less on traditional parties but instead more directly engage citizens.
Think tanks and scholars can help knit some of the divisions back together, and aid politicians in creating policy to foster peace, Prof. ARUGAY said. A lot of our political leaders don’t know what is happening on the ground. It is researchers and scholars who really think hard and go to the grassroots, ask people, and consult with various groups on how they think peace could be pursued. It’s important not just to do research, Prof. ARUGAY said, but to do research that is policy-oriented. That means that as a scholar you don’t just publish, but you make sure that the policies from your research are clearly communicated to decision-makers. Similarly, policies that promote peace is something that needs to be communicated to the voting public and framed in a language that ordinary people can understand. That is the only way that peace could be lasting and sustained, he said.

* Interviewed on November 11, 2016
Posted on December 29, 2016