, Volume 60, Issue 3–4, pp 168–173 | Cite as

The Curious Case of the Duterte Presidency: Turning the Demos Against Democracy?

  • Carmina Yu UntalanEmail author
Thematic Section


This article explores how ‘communicative abundance’ undermines democracy in the Philippines, where insulting and excluding fellow citizens are confused with actual political participation. Intentionally or not, the circulation of messages empowers the establishment rather than the people. However, glum the situation seems, there is still a hope for the demos to reclaim democracy back as their own.


Duterte Democracy Social media Populism Philippines 


  1. Anderson, Benedict. 1988. Cacique Democracy in the Philippines: Origins and Dreams. New Left Review 1(69).Google Scholar
  2. Arditi, Benjamin. 2005. Populism as an Internal Periphery of Democratic Politics. In Populism and the Mirror of Democracy, ed. Francisco Panizza, 72–98. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Bradshaw, Samantha and Philip N. Howard. 2017. Troops, Trolls and Troublemakers: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation. Computational Propaganda Project, Oxford University Working Paper no. 2017.12.Google Scholar
  4. Buenaobra, Maria Isabel T. 2016. Social Media: A Game Changer in Philippine Elections. The Asia Foundation, April 27.Google Scholar
  5. Casiple, Ramon C. 2016. The Duterte Presidency as Phenomenon. Contemporary Southeast Asia 38(2): 179–184.Google Scholar
  6. Coronel, Shiela. 2002. The Role of Media in Deepening Democracy. Accessed 18 Oct 2017.
  7. Coronel, Shiela and Yvonne Chua. 2004. ‘The poor vote is a thinking vote’, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, April 26.Google Scholar
  8. Curato, Nicole. 2017. Flirting with Authoritarian Fantasies? Rodrigo Duterte and the New Terms of Philippine Populism. Journal of Contemporary Asia 47(1): 142–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. David, Randy. 2016. ‘Dutertismo’, Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 1.Google Scholar
  10. Dean, Jodie. 2005. Communicative Capitalism: Circulation and the Foreclosure of Politics. Cultural Politics 1(1): 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hedman, Eva-Lotta E. 2005. In the Name of Civil Society: From Free Election Movements to People Power in the Philippines. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  13. Macabenta, Greg. 2014. ‘Revenge of the bobo-tante and tanga-suporta’, Manila Bulletin, December 3.Google Scholar
  14. Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2016. ‘Presidential favorite Duterte to “butcher” criminals’, May 8.Google Scholar
  15. Pulse Asia Research Inc. (2017) ‘September 2017 Nationwide Survey on Campaign Against Illegal Drugs’.Google Scholar
  16. Singpeng, Aim. 2016. ‘How Duterte Won the Election on Facebook’, New Mandala, May 12.Google Scholar
  17. Thomson, Mark. 2010. Reformism and Populism in the Philippines. Journal of Democracy 21(4): 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thompson, Mark. 2016. Bloodied Democracy: Duterte and the Death of Liberal Reformism in the Philippines. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 3: 39–68.Google Scholar
  19. Untalan, Carmina. 2016. ‘Democracy for the Bobotante’, Institute of Asia & Pacific Studies Dialogue, February 24.Google Scholar
  20. Wolin, Sheldon. 2003. Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Wolin, Sheldon. 2004. Politics as Vision. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for International Development 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Osaka UniversityOsaka PrefectureJapan

Personalised recommendations