3 reasons why you should NOT vote for Duterte

Rodrigo Duterte (via mrcheapjustice.wordpress.com)
Rodrigo Duterte (via mrcheapjustice.wordpress.com)

Ever since Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte filed his candidacy for President of the Philippines, people have been talking non-stop about his unorthodox style.

He has openly admitted to killing, womanizing, and even more recently – he even cursed at the Pope, drawing the ire of the Catholic leadership.

In  a country dominated by Roman Catholics, this is arguably something that no sane politician will do. Yet, here he is.

The reaction and the debate that followed is unsurprising – does Rody Duterte possess the qualities of a ruler fit to run nation in need of good leadership?

On many occasions, Duterte himself has given reasons not to vote for him.

In an effort to contribute to the discussion, netizen noobfromphl gave 3 of the top reasons why you should not vote for Rodrigo Duterte.

noobfromphl writes:

People like Duterte because of his frank, outspoken attitude. His words puts shivers to the guts of criminals, shaking them to their knees. The 70 year old lawyer has a reputation for discipline and a government of effective action.

Below some really good points provided by noobphl as to why people like him and why they shouldn’t.

1. Duterte’s fists for discipline

Mayor Duterte grew to the hearts of the people by virtually eliminating drug abuse and minimizing crime in Davao.

His people claim identity of being honest to the nearest cent when it comes to public transport. Smoking is almost non-existent while cleanliness is optimal for a mature city in the developing world.

More than what I’ve mentioned, there are a series of good Ordinances that were unique to Davao during his reign as Mayor. Non- Davaoeños say they will vote for Duterte for this exceptional characteristic.

This is why we shouldn’t.

Discipline is a hard concept that a government in the national level should not focus on. This is far from the concerns of a president. It fits his style because he is the Mayor; of a town of a country (where it matters)

As if for an entertainer, he can’t keep producing the same act for 6 years. The Davao Mayor must show flexibility and a clean “how to’s” addressing the major issues in the Philippines. But that’s a challenge to all candidates. Discipline is a social issue.

As one friend of mine mentioned while in Davao, people still litter and smoke. There will be people who’ll always be a tough nut to crack.

2. Duterte and his Laws

If Duterte wins, he will most likely impose laws that will be hard to swallow in the hope of getting into the root cause of disciplineright away.

He’ll eventually step into a landmine of punishing the “wrong person” and that will be the beginning of his downfall. While Federalism is a good point of change, he’s not showing how hee’s planning to do it. Maybe becauses the masses won’t understand and it will be an inefficient form of campaign.

Discipline is a bottom-up process. We shouldn’t expect it from a president.

However it remains a good way to jump-start progress. As I said before, (as a social issue) the only effective way into instilling discipline is to set an example.

Another point is how we should focus into legislation instead of banging our heads trying to figure out how to come up with an effective disciplinary mechanism.

Note that the Sanggunian (Panlungsod & Panlalawigan) makes the laws. (The Legislative branch not Executive) And already some laws are in existence all over the Philippines.

We need to focus on law implementation instead of punishing crimes like its the 17th century. Not saying that the mayor (this case Duterte) has no power to contribute to legislation, but it’s not his job to make laws.

3. Duterte and his Shit Altogether

Mayor Duterte is a lawyer. Lawyers should be the last people you’d hear killing crimimals for.

Now, her daughter substituted for Mayor. Not a beautiful sight for people against political dynasties. In defense, Binay also used the same argument Duterte would say if questioned about it. “By now it is not illegal.” — the typical argument of lawyers.

The man just swore in the context of the Pope’s visit.

I mentioned above how he’s somewhat self-exemptuous to his publicized principles. He apologized and for the sake of judgment, he mentioned it in national TV few minutes of exposure, he’s bound to make the same mistakes in the six years with a different degree of consequence.

Do you agree with these thoughts? Share your ideas in the comments section below.