Vigilante justice

According to news reports, one of the major highlights during the Senate hearing on rice smuggling was the statements publicly made by Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte. In one report, it merely said that the mayor had warned alleged rice smuggler David Tan that he would shoot him if he sees him in the city. A milder version of the report said that the mayor warned that he would gladly kill anyone smuggling rice into his city.

The mayor justified this threats when he said during the Senate hearing: “The trouble with us in government is that we talk too much, act too slow and do too little.”

Unless Mayor Duterte was misquoted or misinterpreted, it sounds like he was advocating vigilante justice. And if this is the case, then the reaction of the Senate or those attending the hearing is a bit surprising. The Senate is the body which formulates and issues laws. It would have been expected for this body to articulate the supremacy of the rule of law.

But there were comments that many attendees were nodding in approval or laughing or simply smiling. It is good that Justice Secretary Leila de Lima was there to remind the Senators and those attending that due process is still the law in this country.

But there seems to be some fascination, in certain sectors of society, with vigilante justice and a form of romanticizing the vigilante leader.

Vigilante justice is extrajudicial punishment and a vigilante is a person who takes the law into his own hands by trying or punishing another person without any legal authority or without legal process.

Vigilantes justify their actions by advocating that the legal mechanism is not adequate for criminal punishment or may even be non-existent. Vigilantes see the government as ineffective in enforcing the law; therefore, they can claim to justify their actions as a fulfilment of the wishes of the community.

The victims of vigilante behavior are supposed to be those perceived to be escaping the law or considered above the law. Vigilante leaders will always claim that their violent actions are being done for the good of the “people” or the common good of the country. There are times when vigilante justice results in some short term benefits.

For example, I read a Wikipedia report released a few years ago on the internet about examples of vigilante justice. There was one specific example regarding the Philippines. Here is what it said:

“Current vice mayor of Davao City, Philippines Rodrigo Duterte is noted for transforming the city from the murder capital of the nation to what tourism organizations there now call the ‘most peaceful city in Southeast Asia.’ He has been suspected of being involved with the vigilante Davao Death Squad and has been criticized by human rights groups and by Amnesty International for tolerating extrajudicial killings of alleged criminals. Time magazine has dubbed him as the Punisher.”

The most dreaded feature of vigilante justice is that the process for determining guilt is not transparent and the decision as to the gravity of the crime lies in the hands of the executioner – the vigilante.

For example, how and who determines which smuggler is worth killing and which one can just be beaten up as a warning?

Who determines whether someone escapes conviction because he or she is above the law or the law did not function correctly? If the Senators involved in the PDAF scams are not convicted, is vigilante justice justified in this case? Which has greater weight, plunder or rice smuggling?

And we can go on and on. Is someone who drives recklessly and causes the death of bystanders subject to vigilante justice? And what about child rape? Is this more heinous than rice smuggling?

For those who have given silent and tact approval to vigilante justice, be careful and heed this warning. You may end up getting what you want, a society ruled by vigilantes instead of the rule of law.

Lessons for Thailand

 I have closely followed the political conflicts in Thailand. It seemed difficult to believe that this could be happening in one of economies once predicted to become a tiger economy.

But there is the possibility that this is the beginning of a new phase in internal struggles in the world. Ever since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism, the struggles all over the world have been caused by religious conflicts, especially between Muslims and non-Muslim, and sometimes racial conflicts.

But what is happening in Thailand is a struggle between the predominantly rural poor and the urban based economic elite backed by the military and the aristocratic class. This is classic Marxist class struggle.

The cause is not extreme poverty because Thailand is one of the more progressive countries in Southeast Asia. The cause is rising income inequality or the widening gap between the rich and the poor. I have read that this also the cause for the riots in the streets of Brazil and the mines of South Africa.

The Bangkok elite have offered a solution which can lead to real class violence. The elite want to take power, not through elections which they know they cannot win. They want a council or junta to take over government. This non-elected junta will restore the power to the elite. But it can only be maintained in power through military support. In effect, the elite want a coup d’etat to replace electoral politics.

We have been lucky that all efforts at class struggle have not really prospered in this country. Furthermore, Corazon Aquino consistently refused to accept leadership of any junta proposed in the past because she was a firm believer in democracy.

Perhaps this time Thailand can learn lessons from the Philippines on how to prevent a civil war in their country.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]