An Unlikely Analogy: My Theory on the Philippine Drug War

From: AP via Phil. Daily Inquirer

Lately I have been thinking about the recent events in the Philippines and I came up with a bizarre theory about the war on drugs campaign by the administration which I hope would not be the case because I find it more appalling than the current situation.

In my economics class, we talked about how a country grows and develops, as measured by the gross domestic product or national income, through the perspective of the Solow growth model (Neoclassical growth theory) and the endogenous growth model. Basically, these models presume that a country's capacity to save or invest, given a closed economy, determines how fast it would grow, and the saving rate is variable that affects growth. Other factors also influence the growth of the economy such as the population growth rate and rate of technological change or advancement. From our analysis, we can infer that a larger population would require a smaller allocation of resources for the economy and with the presence of an unequal distribution of wealth, the class with more capital receive the greater allocation. So the conclusion, based on the model, was that countries with a faster population growth, keeping the level of capital constant, would be poorer.

How does this connect with the administration's war on drugs? I remember watching the films Kingsman: The Secret Service and The Purge: Anarchy where the antagonist aims to address and resolve the ills of society like poverty, crime, and corruption, by reducing the population.

[Spoiler Alert] In Kingsman, Valentine (played by Samuel L. Jackson), developed a SIM card, compatible with any device, that would give everyone access to his communications network to avail of free calls and free internet without any limits. His slogan was "Free Calls. Free Internet. For Everyone. Forever." There was one big catch in this seemingly awesome deal: Valentine was going to use the SIM cards to transmit a "neurological wave" or a signal to all devices that would make people more violent and have the urge to kill thus achieving Valentine's purpose, to cull the human race. Before this big event happened though, Valentine had chosen some people, mostly leaders and other influential people, to be immune to the effects of the wave. Of course, the protagonists were able to stop this plan and save the world.

In The Purge franchise, the same concept played out, only in this milieu, the government reestablished by the far right, aimed to address the growing crime and poverty by also killing people but not directly. Instead, since they probably did not want to get their hands dirty, they promulgated a law that instituted an annual event called "the Purge" where anyone can do anything without being brought to justice for it, basically they allowed any and all sorts of crimes to be done for a fixed period of time where there are no holds barred throughout. The desired result was to reduce population but essentially they wanted to get rid of the more disadvantaged groups of society, the poor who cannot defend themselves during these times. As a result of this, at the end of the first movie, the guy who was saved by the main character became this charismatic leader of the resistance to the government so that they may overthrow the current rulers and end the purge. I have not yet watched the third installation of the franchise but I assume there will come a point when the resistance goes head to head against the government.

Now, my crazy theory is that the war on drugs campaign is merely a facade masquerading itself as a necessary step toward progress but underneath, it simply wants to target one of the underlying reasons to economic stagnation that is the large population, which I really hope is not the case although we will probably never know whether the intention was simply to rid society of its ills starting with the illegal drug trade or to conduct a mass annihilation of the populace and using the war on drugs as a front. The thought is chilling if this were the rationale but I am one to give the benefit of the doubt since I have no idea what the actual figures are with regard to the execution of the campaign. I also don't know whether due process is being given since it can easily be abused by saying that the suspects were resisting thereby necessitating force which was the instruction given. I think it would be difficult to verify the facts because, at the moment, anything can be blatantly manipulated to support either side of the debate.

We know how the mechanism of politics works and we know how inefficient and inequitable it is, but change is a long, arduous process toward a desired result and I guess the general problem is that we're impatient and too reckless that we would be willing to accomplish the goal at any cost or on the other side of the spectrum, we're too reserved and unwilling to make big sacrifices to reach that end goal so striking the right balance is key. I think it would be important to note that though change can be done internally and externally, I think internal transformation has a bigger impact and as regards our political, economic, and sociocultural systems, there is a fine line to tread so that one who tries to change the system does not get swallowed up by the system but still, in order to change the system one has to become part of and integrated to it because we're talking about systems based on human interactions and social sentiment, and one cannot simply be a stone being thrown in a river that ripples for a while but still flows in the same direction rather in order for change to occur, one must turn the tide and be able to direct the flow of the river.

Whatever the case may be, given what's happening in the Philippines right now, though we are all passionate for different things such as justice and human rights, peace and order, equality, integrity, and freedom to name a few of the values that we cherish and hold to, I hope that unity can arise among all parties involved, setting aside any differences or any bad blood existing among persuasions, thinking and assessing different decisions and actions critically and constructively in light of what is fair and just, and to try to make an impact in any small way. For me, though I know that some methods may be more pragmatic but less humane and I disagree that the ends justify the means, I still have to respect the authority that has been given to the leaders of the government because the people elected them and it would be unproductive to just keep on complaining about their shortcomings though I understand where the frustration is coming from and it is valid but we can do more productive things with our time.