Elitism versus populism. This has long been a persistent binary in Philippine politics and it is certain to play a major role in the 2022 Philippine presidential election next May. The binary was front and center in the last presidential election in 2016 with the victory of the ostensibly populist Rodrigo Duterte to the highest office in the land.
As presidential hopeful Isko Moreno reminded Filipinos, there is no reason to think the elitist/populist contradiction won’t be a divisive and decisive factor in next year’s polls.
As reported on Rappler.com, Moreno publicly stated on October 15, 2021 that “if you are poor, you don’t have the right to better yourself because you are not acceptable to them, the moralists, the decent. The supposedly decent.”
Who precisely was Moreno referring to when he said “the moralists, the decent?” He appeared to be aiming his criticism at the Philippine elites, the ones in his view who have been “fighting for 30 years” but to little avail in his opinion: “did the Philippines prosper? Did the people prosper?”
Moreno’s remark about “fighting for 30 years” is an allusion to the 1986 EDSA revolt that removed the dictatorial Ferdinand Marcos from power. That was a once-in-a-lifetime historical episode that put an end to the Marcos regime and reinstated democratic rule. That rule would be spearheaded by what have been termed as “liberal elites” with Corazon Aquino at the helm.
For those thirty years that Moreno reminded us of, it should have been an era of dynamic change and reform in which all the worst ills of Philippine society (corruption, poverty, nepotism, violence, unemployment, environmental damage) were to have been significantly alleviated.
But in looking back through the lens of history since 1986, what many Filipinos thought was the historical inevitability of a more egalitarian, just and halcyon society instead led to more of the same tumultuous, oligarchic, rentier capitalistic, and disproportionate socio-economic conditions that plagued the Philippines during Marcos’s time.
The political and economic ramifications of those preceding thirty years have been very much at odds with the promise of EDSA I. That incredible experience was to become, by and large, a golden opportunity lost. The ultimate failure of EDSA I would invite aspersions from citizens, politicos, and intellectuals alike. It would also tragically give rise to the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte.
Which brings us back to the elitism/populism question. There are pros and cons for both sides of the argument. The liberal elites---not necessarily to be confused with the pejorative use of the word in terms of relating to the hubristically, self-referential political and economic elites---utilize and promote the language and themes of democratic and meritocratic governance.
The other side of the elitist coin is the dark one, the side that is far from being aligned with moral and ethical democracy and the rule of law. This side is concentrated on perpetuating predatory vested interests at the cost of the wider society’s welfare.
With populism, it can energize the lower- and middle-classes and raise among them a mass awareness of their democratic rights and responsibilities. This is especially the case for those classes that have been disenfranchised by the possessive policies and actions of the reactionary urban and landed elites. Pursuant to the enlightened concept of majority rule, populism in its more salutary understanding can be a lived complement to a truly representative democracy.
Far removed from this view is when populism succumbs to the worst instincts and pathologies of those who would abuse and exploit its vision. One can think of public figures like Vladimir Putin, Rodrigo Duterte, and Donald Trump as examples of faux populist political leaders. These types of autocratic or so-called “illiberal” leaders and their dangerously myopic and inflammatory thinking attempt to emasculate democratic capacities and establish their version of political legitimacy according to the “will of the people.”
Autocratic rulers precipitate what history professor Timothy Snyder calls the “politics of eternity.” This idea runs counter to a more linear, more progressive trend of history and recoils into a recurring “story of victimhood” for a country. According to Snyder:
“eternity places one nation at the centre of a cyclical
story of victimhood. Time is no longer a line into the
future, but a circle that endlessly returns the same threats
from the past...within eternity, no one is responsible because
we all know that the enemy is coming no matter what we do.
Eternity politicians spread the conviction that government
cannot aid society as a whole, but can only guard against
threats. Progress gives way to doom.”
Rodrigo Duterte is one such eternity politician. Rather than move the Philippines forward into a bright and prosperous future, Duterte has returned the country into a chronically retrograde orbit around “the same threats from the past” that Snyder speaks of. From sponsoring and conducting a horribly bloody and ineffective war on drugs to displaying utter incompetence and apathy in responding to the Philippines’ economic and Covid challenges, Duterte has managed to conjure up a wretched, “eternal,” outcome for the Filipino people.
Arguably, and ironically so, Duterte would never have had the chance to wreak the damage he has caused if not for the missed chance legacy of EDSA I. This aftermath has led to the nurturing and growth of “grievance politics” which, as Professor Richard Heydarian said, has become a phenomenon of discontentment in the Philippines as well as in other nations.. For Heydarian, grievance politics is the masses’ way of
“rising and trying to tell the elites that 'either
you’re gonna change your ways or we’re gonna
go with outside the box kind of candidates'.”
Duterte’s victory in 2016 blindsided the Philippine elites for the prevailing wisdom among them prior to the election was that the electorate was somehow bound by norms of civility and truth. But having gravitated to Duterte, the voters enabled him to establish a socio-political foothold nationwide. As a result, Duterte was free to live up to his violent, intemperate, hardheaded, everyman reputation and inflict it on the lowest, misfortunate common denominators of Philippine society.
The situation Filipinos are facing now essentially entails two choices for May 2022: either the Philippines revitalizes its highly-valued democratic foundations or it sinks deeper into volatility, class tensions, and polarizing leadership.
As Richard Heydarian stated, “The [Philippines]...is caught in an interregnum, struggling to anchor itself somewhere between strong man populism, autocratic nostalgia, and democratic resistance—with no clear resolution on the horizon. The Philippines has entered a twilight zone.”
Let’s hope that Filipino voters will look to the future and not remain stuck with the past and present order of things in their country. The oligarchic elites meanwhile, should work on burnishing whatever democratic ideals they may still hold. With them, to see their purported commitment to democracy is to believe.
To continue on their course of exclusionary privilege, the disregarding of the vision of collective humanism, and the groupthink attitude of maintaining the power of a monopolized status quo, is to do continuous harm to the Filipino people.
As for the liberal elites, the heroes and torchbearers of EDSA I, they must understand what Timothy Snyder means when he says that “History is not therapy.” Remembering the past is not always meant to be comforting. The socio-political past is remembered to take into account the mistakes that have been made and to learn from them, to not repeat them again.
The disappointment of EDSA I and the disillusionment with the liberal elites that it fostered is a lesson writ large. A resentful people seething against the backdrop of respectability politics will always leave the door open to the most extreme responses.
ALLEN GABORRO
Comments
Post a Comment