On Martial law redux: Can State power ever be trusted again? Commented [AS1]: Who is your target audience?

What is the purpose of this piece?

Martial law, the ultimate trigger for the Filipino liberal and/or activist, has finally reared its
ugly head. The word's potency has ripened tremendously after the burial of its first enactor
and the president'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? Doesnt 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 more tangible to the Philippines more
than ever before. 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 the Marawi martial law being a Trojan horse for suspected authoritarian aspirations.
Given recent history, can state power ever be trusted again even when the situation would
seem to merit it?

The suspension of civil freedoms has always been available in times of emergency. Some
classical views on the state, namely Max Weber and Thomas Hobbes, recognize the use of
violence as being integral to the state's existence. Weber precisely defines the state as the
monopoly of legitimate violence, while Hobbes' social contract theory sees sovereign
power as a defense against the much more chaotic state of nature. Carl Schmidt defines
sovereign power as the ability to decide the state of exception, or occasions when legal
norms would no longer apply. Though Schmidt's thoughts may be linked to the justification
of historys worst wars and struggles, current realities, or at least framings of realities, may
deem such exceptions and deployment of violence as pragmatic options.

Is this the real life?

How can a necessary function of the state be spoiled forever or at least for the 21st century?

What the theorists of the modern state may not have anticipated was the explosion of
communication media, i.e. the somehow simultaneously over discussed and under analyzed
realm of social media. Whether on local, or world politics, Cyberspace has an arena for
truth claims 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. Contemporary thinkers such as Jodi Dean have already expressed their
suspicion of social medias hype as the hope of political communication. She states that
internet provides fetishized form of participation, a fantasy of participation. Under the
guise of greater connectivity and visibility, information technology actually hides the
failure of democracy, as people mistake online visibility with engagement. People may like
one view or post more than another, but it does not clarify objective truths. It has become a
contest of subjective approval rather than critical investigation.

The internets information glut has made terrorism all the more terrifying. Along with
violence, a terrorists most potent weapon is fear. Fear is amplified in times of uncertainty.
What 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.

Where does this leave the State? As mentioned, traditional notions of the State would
associate its existence with order, clarity, or legibility (as James Scott would put it.) The
State should indeed be strong and harsh in times of emergency. However, statist thinkers
probably could not fathom the age of post-truth where emergencies can be doubted or
even fabricated, causing the debate on any action's legitimacy. Geography and information
deficits have prevented any accurate and objective assessment on the situation.
Furthermore, the lack of data has caused a space for speculation glut that further muddles
the situation. The purpose for state violence has always been to ensure clarity, sureness in
times of chaos. Not only do terrorists hide not only in the shadows but also in the chatter
of the crowd. But 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,
Trumps presidency (arguably), thrives on deflecting truth and affirming fear and chaos.

Trust is integral to the States legitimacy with its subjects, the people. Any state action
should be seen as for the peoples interest. While attempting to deflect scandal, the
statesmen thriving in the confusion severely damages their credibility in the long run. This
approach simply borrows time before Post-modernity of cyberspace may have
democratized and relativized truth but made truth into a ubiquitous weapon for various
interests and opinions.

Sometimes even the most seemingly real narratives of fear have ended up being proverbial
men behind curtains. It is not the author's claim that Marawi may be a staged crisis but
even a cursory awareness of both world and domestic history would cast enough doubt.
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 tangible deaths and tragedies. Too much blood has been spilt on wild goose
chases. 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 may continue to be a political
puzzle to many, policymakers should strike a balance between harshness and careful
examination of facts on the ground.

Our own brown Robespierre may have captured voters imaginations with his crusade
against drugs, a valid and real beast to slay. However, he has deflected scandals and error
of his own through similar methods and mouthpieces as Trump. The acceptance of any
martial law may be possible but trust and truth need to be restored in our discursive
spaces, or at least the orientation towards the truth. An interesting start would be keeping
some salt near our computers and devices.

Matthew Ordoez is a part-time lecturer of the Department of Political Science at De La

Salle University-Manila.