He used methods of intimidation and subverted the rule of law to attack his political enemies. He played the “strong man” to weaken institutional mechanisms and checks against his authority. He frequently made inappropriate and crass remarks and threatened to pull his country out of international organizations. And yet, he still retains his popularity.

Does this sound familiar? It is a description of Rodrigo Duterte, former president of the Philippines, after all.  

Duterte, who served as President of the Philippines from 2016-2022, has often been considered “Asia’s Trump.” It’s easy to draw parallels between Duterte and U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump, as both are known for their inflammatory rhetoric, hostility towards rivals, and controversial political scandals. 

Despite having 34 felony convictions, inciting an insurrection in the U.S. Capitol, and refusing to accept the results of the 2020 election, among many other controversial acts, Trump was victorious in the 2024 election. Trump proved during his first term that he was willing to subvert democratic institutions for his own gain. According to a 2021 survey from Pew Research Center, conducted a few days after the January 6th insurrection, 68% of Americans did not want Trump to continue acting as a major figure in politics. But somehow, he gained enough support to win in 2024. 

Now also seeking political power again, Duterte aims to return as mayor of Davao City. I argue that to achieve his political comeback, Duterte will harness the very mechanisms that allowed Trump to gain enough support for reelection — tapping into citizens’ fears and their frustration at the incumbent political leadership. Regardless of the differences in political landscape between the U.S. and the Philippines, Duterte’s harsh rhetoric and continual appeal to the needs of Filipino citizens will aid his effort to successfully seize power once again.

Duterte is notorious for his “war on drugs,” where he ordered police to kill suspected drug dealers who were mostly poor urban citizens. He often boasted about the killings, even comparing himself to Hitler and saying he’d “be happy to slaughter” the suspects. The International Criminal Court opened an investigation in 2021 to look into the “large number of extrajudicial killings in Davao City” while Duterte was mayor and in other regions during his presidency.

According to a 2018 survey by Social Weather Stations, 82% of Fillipinos surveyed were satisfied with Duterte’s violent war on drugs. Duterte’s rhetoric about suspected drug dealers created a strong “us versus them” dynamic, which, as described by McCoy et al. in their article on patterns in political polarization, allows those in the “out-group” to be placed in a “culturally invisible domain,” and “reinforces the politics of alienation and exclusion,” thus strengthening support for in-party leadership. Duterte’s portrayal of perceived criminals as dangerous “others” provided a scapegoat for crime in the Philippines, as his frequent dehumanization of suspected drug dealers gave citizens an outlet for their fears surrounding safety. According to a recent survey by Social Weather Stations, there has been an increase in fears among Filipinos in 2024 surrounding criminality. Duterte can continue harnessing these fears, as the “war on drugs” rages on.

Trump gained support through similarly harsh rhetoric, especially surrounding the issue of immigration. He frequently dehumanized immigrants and portrayed them as unwelcome outsiders and criminals. Last month, he suggested that immigrants who commit murder have “bad genes.” Through this discourse, Trump has been able to gain support from Americans who feel threatened by immigrants and stoke their fear and hatred. Trump’s stricter immigration policies were a central part of his campaign and fueled support for him on election day, especially among voters living near the southern border. Trump’s rhetoric surrounding immigration is similar to Duterte’s rhetoric during his “war on drugs,” as both gained support by stoking opposition to an out-group. Filipino support for Duterte’s “war on drugs” will therefore fuel his effort to return as mayor of Davao City. 

Not all Fillipinos support Duterte’s violence towards suspected drug dealers. A recent article in The New York Times detailed the grave effect that his actions had on the Filipino population, as many lower class citizens want Duterte to face the consequences of ordering the killings of innocent people. Despite concerns from voters, Duterte still retains significant support through making the “Filipino public more fearful about criminality” and notably increasing “their existential insecurity about crime.” As described by Jan-Werner Müler in What Is Populism?, populist leaders pursue an “exclusive moral representation of the people,” which Duterte accomplishes by promising to address concerns about crime rates. Through this populist rhetoric, Duterte can overcome concerns about his abuse of power given his push to make fighting crime a national priority, which rallies support from citizens. 

Another one of Trump’s major successes was focusing on the economy and targeting the Biden administration’s handling of inflation. He was able to gain support by emphasizing the increased prices of groceries under the Biden administration and ensuring a return to more reasonable prices under his presidency. Trump was able to appeal to the concrete needs of many American voters and promise a change from a perceived failure of Democrats’ handling of the economy. Voters therefore shifted away from supporting the incumbent, allowing Trump to gain power and reflecting anti-incumbent voter trends across the globe. 

The current political leadership in the Philippines has also been rife with conflict, as it is divided between two clans: the Marcoses and the Dutertes. Though the two clans were once allies, their partnership collapsed and they are now facing disagreements about how the country should be run, specifically regarding geopolitics. While current President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. has prioritized strengthening ties and military alliances with the U.S. and other western nations, Duterte has leaned towards a more pro-China policy, favoring trade relations with China over strengthened U.S. relations. Duterte himself has used inflammatory rhetoric towards Marcos, accusing him of using illegal drugs and pushing for opposition to his administration.  

Duterte’s daughter, Sara Duterte has served as Vice President under Marcos, and has kept the Duterte family involved in the political sphere, even while he has been away from public office. According to Reuters, Marcos’ approval ratings have dropped to 52% this year, while Sara Duterte’s have risen to 69%. Given a worldwide pattern of opposition to incumbent leadership, Filipino citizens may likely seek different policies from the incumbent, Marcos, and opt to support the Dutertes instead. 

But, Duterte chose to run for mayor of Davao City, instead of seeking a bigger role in the national government or deciding to run for a Senate position. According to Akbayan, the progressive political party in the Philippines, Duterte’s attempt to gain power reeked “of desperation” with the clan lacking “a coherent political project to survive.” Some may argue that because the political landscape in the Philippines is completely different than in the U.S., Duterte would not be able to seize power using similar tactics to Trump. 

However, given the politically polarized nature of the Philippines, Duterte’s inflammatory rhetoric will allow him to target out-groups and use the declining approval rating of Marcos to his advantage. As a result, “Asia’s Trump” has a clear path to a political comeback, following Trump’s blueprint for regaining power.