Home ›› 13 Dec 2021 ›› Editorial
William Shakespeare once famously described the world as a stage, where men and women are merely players, each having "their exits and their entrances". It's the perfect analogy for Philippine politics today, particularly as business-as-usual drama is about to reach its crescendo ahead of next year's presidential election.
Throughout its centuries-long existence, the Philippines has been tossed among rapacious empires and self-serving elites. But it has not seen a leader quite like Rodrigo Duterte. For the past five years, the president has run the country like a personal fiefdom, dictating the course of politics and public discourse.
However, the Covid-19 pandemic, which triggered five quarters of recession and the deepest economic crisis in the country's modern history, has left the government exposed. As a result, a growing number of Filipinos are looking for alternatives, seeking competent leadership and a clear map for post-pandemic recovery.
Duterte is entering his twilight months in power with rapidly declining approval ratings. Populist politics, nevertheless, continues to be a major force in the Philippines. Thus, almost all of his potential successors are presenting themselves as amalgams of technocratic competence and anti-establishment populism. Chief among them is the young and charismatic mayor of Manila, Francisco "Isko" Moreno, who is positioning himself as a kind of "Macron of the Philippines" – referring to French President Emmanuel Macron – wrapping proactive governance in populist rhetoric inside a broadly centrist political agenda.
This formulation is an outcome Duterte's impact on the political landscape. A consummate politician with inscrutable charisma, the incumbent leader has faced a number of crises without losing his grip on the imagination of millions of Filipinos.
His political success is underpinned by a phenomenon called "performative populism", which involves mobilising a range of evocative symbols, powerful images and emotionally driven rhetoric, which collectively create an impression of decisive and sincere leadership. A public relations machinery – powered by an engaging disinformation campaign and a set of pro-Duterte social media influencers and bloggers with immense reach – has proven helpful.
It's precisely Duterte's flair for the dramatic that explains the rollercoaster drama ahead of the 2022 presidential election.
In early November, the Davao City mayor and presidential daughter, Sara Duterte, toyed with the idea of running for the presidency, which would have placed her on a collision course with former senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr, the namesake son of the former Filipino strongman. Ms Sara eventually settled for a vice-presidential run in tandem with the ascendant Marcos. Unwilling to cede initiative, Duterte threatened to run for the vice-presidency against his own daughter, only to drop the idea days later.
But while the dramatic turn of events captured public imagination, it's unlikely to indefinitely distract voters from the pandemic-led impoverishment throughout the country. All the key global rankings, from Nikkei Asia's Covid-19 Recovery Index to Bloomberg’s Resilience Index, have shown that, under Duterte, the Philippines is among the world's laggards in pandemic management.
Be that as it may, both Ms Sara and Marcos have consistently topped surveys of potential contenders for the presidency, while relishing a nationwide network of supporters and massive electoral machines.
Yet, the heirs of two of the most influential Filipino political families are far from invincible. If anything, both "establishment candidates" are vulnerable to public backlash amid a prolonged economic crisis, which has wiped out a decade of developmental gains and driven millions of Filipinos into precarious employment conditions for years to come.
And yet, there is little indication that the public wants a reversion to a liberal-reformist past. Throughout the past decade, surveys have consistently shown a preference for decisive leaders, who can swiftly and effectively deliver public services. Surveys show that only about 15 per cent of Filipinos are committed to liberal democratic politics, meaning that the vast majority is possibly open to more populist, if not authoritarian, leaders.
This should come as no surprise. As the leading political scientist Cas Mudde explains, populism represents "an illiberal democratic response to undemocratic liberalism", and in the Philippines, the liberal elite broadly failed to bring about inclusive development after the fall of the Marcos dictatorship in the mid-1980s.
To be fair, there is no consensus on the exact definition of populism, which is often conflated with authoritarian rule. In simplest terms, populism can be defined as a distinct style of politics and electoral mobilisation strategy, whereby the leader claims to be the true representative of the masses against a self-serving elite. This is why scholars such as Jan-Werner Muller insist that populism is inherently authoritarian, since it is "an exclusionary form of identity politics" that portrays all critics as public enemies.
