Can state power be trusted again?

Martial law, the ultimate trigger for the Filipino liberals and activists, has finally reared its ugly head. The word’s potency has ripened tremendously after the burial of former president Ferdinand E. Marcos and President Rodrigo Duterte’s frequent and ominous flirtations throughout his campaign.

As expected, the proclamation has caused stirs in the echo chambers of social media. However, can we say that this reaction is warranted? Doesn’t the Marawi debacle warrant such a reaction from our head of state? Has our history ultimately ruined the primordial function of the state?

The global threat of Islamic extremism has become even more tangible to the Philippines. The capture of Marawi was mere hours apart from the Manchester bombing and followed by a bus terminal attack in Jakarta.

The frequency and possible coordination of these attacks in the West and East alike should not be downplayed. Such attacks need a firm and decisive response. The realm of theory and textbook definitions would definitely recognize such responses. Some commentators have chosen to allay fears of martial law being a Trojan horse for suspected authoritarian aspirations. (READ: Martial Law 2.0 in Mindanao: Beta version of Duterte’s authoritarian project)

The suspension of civil freedoms has always been valid in times of emergency. Leon Trotsky said, “Every state has been founded on force.” Any law needs force to have teeth. Such thinking may be linked to the justification of history’s worst wars and persecutions, current realities, or at least framings of realities, and may deem such exceptions and deployment of violence as pragmatic options.

How can a necessary function of the state be spoiled forever or at least for the 21st century? (READ: LOOK: Palace defends martial law in new social media video)

More pragmatic policymakers defending martial law may still need to contend with the explosion of communication media – the somehow simultaneously overdiscussed and underanalyzed realm of social media. (READ: Netizens terrified or trusting of martial law in Mindanao)

Whether on local, or world politics, cyberspace has an arena for truth claims became saturated with conspiracy and conjectures. Even satire is lost on the uninitiated. The deployment of photos, videos, and quotations has elicited confusion on a myriad of topics. (READ: Propaganda war: Weaponizing the internet)

Contemporary thinkers like Jodi Dean have already expressed their suspicion of social media as the hope of political communication. She states that internet provides fetishized form of participation – a fantasy of participation. (READ: Fake accounts, manufactured reality on social media)

Under the guise of greater connectivity and visibility, information technology actually hides the failure of democracy as people mistake online visibility with engagement.

Weaponizing uncertainty

The internet’s information glut has made terrorism all the more terrifying. Along with violence, a terrorist’s most potent weapon is fear – amplified in times of uncertainty. What is a better time to weaponize uncertainty than in an age of post-truth and fake news? A violent act in any part of the world can be claimed by ISIS anytime, allowing them to potentially latch onto any tragedy at will, regardless of its factuality. (READ: Terrorists, social media, and spreading ideologies)

The state would naturally respond with harshness and firmness with such a flexible enemies. However, it also faces the age of post-truth where crises can be doubted, fabricated or downplayed, causing crippling debates on any action’s legitimacy. Geography and information deficits have caused a space for speculation glut that further muddles the situation. Terrorists hide not only in the shadows but also in the chatter of the crowd.

Another complication: what incentive is there for states to fulfill its primordial function when it may possibly benefit from the chaos? Presidents with questionable legitimacy, for instance, Donald Trump’s presidency arguably thrives on deflecting evidence and affirming fear and chaos.

These days, while attempting to deflect scandal, statesmen thriving in the confusion severely damages their credibility in the long run. Social media may have democratized and relativized truth, but it also degraded “truth” into a ubiquitous weapon for various interests and opinions. (READ: How Facebook algorithms impact democracy)

Sometimes even the most seemingly real narratives of fear have ended up being proverbial cries of wolf. This is not to claim that Marawi may be a staged crisis but even a cursory awareness of both world and domestic history would cast enough doubt on martial law as a proportionate response.

Sovereign power has been abused too many times across history for the 21st century populace to take it seriously. Too many times have wars been fought from imagined explanations to even the most tangible tragedies.

A case in point would be America’s invasion of Iraq as a reaction to the 9/11 bombing. Before that, America had secret wars in Indochina rationalized by the threat of communism. Much closer to home is the very first declaration of martial law being rationalized by a staged kidnapping of Juan Ponce Enrile.

Mindanao itself has been a zone of policy debacles and armed conflict especially in the cases of the Mamasapano massacre and the Zamboanga skirmish before it. Though the region remains to be a political puzzle to many, policymakers should strike a balance between harshness and restraint based on objective information.

Our own brown Robespierre may have captured voters’ imaginations with his crusade against drugs, a valid beast to slay. However, he has deflected scandals and error of his own through similar methods and mouthpieces as Trump. Trust is integral to the state’s legitimacy with its subjects, the people. Any state action should be seen as for the people’s interest. Acceptance of any martial law may be possible when trust and truth are restored in our discursive spaces. (READ: Martial Law, the dark chapter in Philippine history)

One start would be applying restraint and keeping some salt nearby when with computers and devices. – Rappler.com

Matthew Ordoñez is a part-time lecturer of the Department of Political Science at De La Salle University-Manila.