DEINLA, Ronnel A.

11780541
ADR- G03

DDS v. DILAWAN

A Circle of Conflict Analysis on a Mainstream False Dichotomy

The Conflict

Those who support the incumbent President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (President Duterte) are
Duterte Diehard Supporters (DDS), while those who criticize him are Dilawan. Notably,
Dilawans are called such because they mainly support Liberal Party (LP) members that don the
color yellow. Mainly, these LP members are former President Benigno Aquino III (PNoy), Vice
President Maria Leonor Robredo (VP Leni) and Senator Theresia Hontiveros (Senator
Hontiveros). For purposes of this paper, Dilawan shall refer to any critic of the present
administration.

When President Duterte and his mates assumed office, it was hard not to compare him
with his predecessors from the LP. Essentially, the point of conflict between DDS and Dilawans
is how “the current administration is better” as against “LP could have done better.” As an
example, PNoy is mild-mannered and mostly silent, and does not act on impulse. From the
viewpoint of a DDS, PNoy is passive, indecisive, and inefficient. In contrast, President Duterte is
reactive, ready to comment, and quick to issue orders. A Dilawan would say impulsive, reckless,
and unruly.

Because of the stark contrast between the incumbent and the immediately preceding
leaderships, two factions stand out. This leads us to the fallacy of false dichotomy. False
dichotomy is a type of informal fallacy wherein a claimant presents an “either/or” situation, but
in fact there are other choices. To illustrate: “If you are not a DDS, then you are a Dilawan.” In
reality, there are people who can cut through the nuances and be objective in supporting and/or
criticizing the government without being identified as belonging to one side. However, in this
paper, I will be using Moore’s Circle of Conflict to explore conflicts between the DDS and
Dilawans.

Conflict Analysis

Data Conflicts

With propaganda as the best weapon to sway public opinion, parties have resorted to
spreading fake news and creating sound bites.
 Fake news results in misinformation. This prevents each party from obtaining the right
information about the other. This problem is aggravated by people who have a large following in
social media that spreads this kind of news. One notable fake news pertains to the Marawi
Rehabilitation project. It was a post that attacked the mainstream media for not reporting good
things about the administration. It showed houses that were near complete, making it appear that
Marawi City was under rehabilitation. This made the DDS appear to have “made the right
choice” and that the LP could not have done the same thing. However, the photos attached to the
post were actually taken in Japan, thus fake.

Meanwhile, sound bites create a lack of information. Parties will select phrases off the
statement of another that when taken out of context would mean differently and would further a
cause of one party. Recently, we have seen the “Duterte Legacy” infographic. The
underemployment rate looked pleasing as it fell from 13.3% to 13%. However, as we look at the
bigger picture, the number of underemployed actually increased. Only the percentage increased.
Of course, the administration would only like to present the good parts.

Because parties are hurdled with fake news and sound bites, information is hard to get.
This only makes both parties wary of each other and it makes it hard to accept information even
though it is the truth.

Relationship Conflicts

Because the parties find it difficult to get to the truth, stereotypes are created. Dilawans
have branded DDS as low-class, unruly, foul-mouthed, and depraved of morality while DDS call
Dilawans elitists, communists, and righteous. As they rarely engage in sensible communications,
they have accepted that they would never have a meaningful relationship.

Unless the two parties could actually sit down and cut through the ad hominems, moving
forward seems like a shot in the dark.

Structural Conflicts

The campaign of President Duterte was heavily focused on the shortcomings of the
previous administration. The article “Aquino’s letdowns, Duterte’s promise” from Rappler
described, the vote for Duterte is a “protest vote.” It was made in light of “discontent with the
state of things.” It is not the fault of the DDS that they are passionate to see changes in the
government. President Duterte was a candidate that nobody in the Philippines had before. He did
not have charisma, but he was related to the masses. His supporters did not know what they
wanted or expected, only that they want things to be different in the hopes that different might be
better. Rightfully, President Duterte has a strong base of followers.
 Because the campaign of President Duterte revolved on the shortcomings of the past
administration, the supporters of the latter have thus gathered to make sure that the narrative is
not one-sided.

Value Conflicts

On one hand, the DDS, are those who believe that the end justifies the means, while the
Dilawans are adamant in doing things right. The war on drugs highlights this incompatible belief
systems of the parties.

The DDS insists that the rule of law takes a backseat because drugs are a public menace
and those who engage in illegal drug activities deserve to be punished. To them, the killings are
justified. It does not matter how many are killed, so long as the “bad people” are gone.

As the Dilawans believe otherwise, DDS call them sympathizers. To them, the rule of
law should be above everything even if it takes time. To the DDS, time is wasted and justice
must be dispensed with in the swiftest manner because they are that fed up with how things were
done.

Interest Conflicts

It can be conceded that both the DDS and Dilawans only want what is best for our
country. No citizen would like to see their country fail.

However, the continued conflict between the two are probably rooted in their desire to be
right- that the people they support are better than those on the other side. Because pride is
something Filipinos have an abundance of, no party will concede in admitting the shortcomings
of their leaders and acknowledge the successes of the other.