FILIPINOS LOVE populists—whether it’s the mayor from Davao who delivered raunchy tirades during state addresses or the movie star from San Juan who branded himself as “para sa mahirap,” only to be marred by a jueteng corruption scandal that trailed him into impeachment.
Charismatic personalities have a natural magnetism. To appeal to national interests is one thing, but to earn the favor of people is visceral. Side with the masses, and they are bound to fall in love. For those at the margins, concepts like economic growth are intangible. After all, a country’s rising Gross Domestic Product does not feed hungry mouths.
From the standpoint of a frustrated and desperate populace, it is easier to understand why a former dictator’s son won the presidency. A huge demographic of Filipinos, particularly those from the provinces, never witnessed Martial Law violence firsthand. In contrast, they enjoyed the peace and felt the prevention of crimes brought by mandatory curfews.
This is precisely why former president Rodrigo Duterte won in the 2016 Presidential Elections. “Golden Age nostalgia” made extreme solutions like extrajudicial killings a sound solution to many. The notion that the death penalty would bring back fear into the eyes of criminals became commonly held among Filipinos.
A willingness to accept authoritarian cures is not confined to local politics. Subservience was instilled in Filipinos by self-proclaimed “saviors” of our colonial past, who made us docile through schools and deemed us indolent whenever we deviated from their standards.
The Americans’ propaganda of covering up their violence as “benevolent assimilation” in history books was instrumental in our historical amnesia—so much so that we collectively forgot the 3-year war that killed 200,000 Filipinos.
Despite being granted our independence, we never truly severed our ties with Washington. Instead, we were kept on a short leash under the guise of autonomy.
Until now, these effects are ingrained in our political structures, as evidenced by incongruences within the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Currently, we use an inefficient tripartite system, where processes of checks and balances are bypassed by party politics. Oftentimes, the support for charter change comes from us adopting the model of a federal, two-party state, which is incompatible with our institutions.
Apart from this, we revel in the illusion of American salvation in the country’s struggle over the West Philippine Sea. As China’s aggression grows day by day, we find ourselves relying on our former oppressor—a nation so stained by the blood of Palestine’s dispossession and the endless oil wars in the Middle East.
Tired of bowing to tyrants, we became one ourselves—dictating what is right and dismissing other struggles as “lesser.”
Within our spheres, we tend to be highly critical of our fellow Filipinos’ dreams for a better Philippines. Clouded by our own blindness, we become rudimentary in principle, absent from the realization that our own ideals do not trump theirs.
Colors in the political spectrum do not equate to a moral high ground. What we should work for is a dream shared by all, free of oppression—and it begins with confronting ourselves on how we perpetuate oppression.
Sean is a junior currently under the AB Political Science degree program at the Ateneo de Manila University. As Video Production Editor, he utilizes multimedia as an extension of traditional journalism. Reconciling his education with his creative pursuits, he aspires to improve the plight of ordinary Filipinos.
Editor’s Note: The views and opinions expressed by the opinion writer do not necessarily state or reflect those of the publication.
