Article Reviewed:

Teehankee, Julio C., “Duterte’s Resurgent Nationalism in the Philippines: A Discursive

Institutionalist Analysis”, Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 35, 3, 69-
89.

The article, “Duterte’s Resurgent Nationalism in the Philippines: A Discursive

Institutionalist Analysis”, by Julio C. Teehankee seeks to address how the Early

Duterte Presidency in the Philippines affects the current insights of Filipinos towards

his mindset of separating the country to its geopolitical interests on its former colonial

master, the United States of America. The research problem being addressed is how

the concept of presidential leadership in political time in analyzing crafted narratives

are transformed into governance scripts that bind together a coalition of interests

within a particular institutional setting.

It is clear from the abstract of the article that it is no simple issue. The article

describes facts which turn the Philippines’ steady relationship with the United States

of America (USA) and the European Union (EU) into something that can be easily

removed, just because of the War on Drug. The Author starts by the first issue, Duterte

has announced, which made a drastic change in the political point of views of people

– the renouncement on the separation from the United States. In light of the issue in

the War on Drugs, Duterte’s decisions rooted not only in his generation and identity

as a Mindanaoan and the resentment towards “imperial Manila” - a pejorative epithet

used by sectors of Philippine society and non-Manileños to express the idea that all

the affairs of the Philippines, whether in politics, economy and business or culture, are

decided by what goes on in the capital region, Metro Manila without considering the

needs of the rest of the country, largely because of centralized government and

urbanite snobbery (Martinez 2004), but also a historical blowback against the “US
imperialism” - a policy aimed at extending the political, economic, and cultural control

of the United States government over areas beyond its boundaries (“History in

Context: Imperialism" Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History, 2015). In this

article, the author acknowledges that Duterte’s leadership is a revival of a Nationalist

Politics, since it is, for them the best way to form a steady government. A government

where less to be heard voices will be given the chance to voice out what they really

need, what they really want, and what is really best for them. That is why Duterte

gained the people's heart because of his firm conviction to what he says.

Narratives and Discursive Institutionalism are given emphasis since the

comparison of regimes makes it clear that each president has their own ability to form

a consensus around a narrative and generate public support. Narratives as defined

“discourses with a clear sequential order that connect events in a meaningful way for

a definite audience and thus offer insights about the world and/or the people’s

experiences of it” (Hinchman and Hinchman, as quoted by Elliot 2003: 3) have become

a popular interpretative approach in social sciences. Teehankee pointed out that

Presidential narratives can be considered as a medium of institutional continuity and

change through the mobilization of ideas at a discursive level. With these narratives,

in general, becomes “what is and what ought to be.”

To such a complicated issue the author sums the research up well by saying

that the idea of reviving the Filipino Nationalism can mean two things – unite internally

or divide externally (Nairn 1997). Teehankee writes, “The resurgence of nationalism,

not only in Asia but even in Europe, is an indication of the adverse reaction to

globalization, as the losers in the borderless world attempt to win back control of their

respective national borders.”

 This is a good concept for analyzing political views. It is only written to better

understand how politics work in different people’s mindset. The Author presented

concrete guidelines for carrying the issue out. In my opinion, the article can be a good

resource paper for those who study politics and issues connected thereto. The author

also cited people and their works which helped support his article. These are good,

well-known examples and authors and I think it adds great deal credibility to the piece

as a whole.

Overall, this article is well-written with an important message. The piece, when

taken as a whole, is relevant and very convincing, especially that it laid down facts and

is easy to understand.