Between populist and principled politics

When Rodrigo Duterte stepped down from Malacañang and Ferdinand Marcos Jr. took over, a
profound paradox emerged and shaped the country’s political narrative. The global tendency
towards strongman leadership, which frequently muddies the lines between populism,
authoritarianism, and democratic values, is reflected in this transition, which is representative of
the country’s complicated political dynamics.
Incredibly, Duterte’s administration—known for its savage war on drugs—has maintained
decent support ratings at home despite widespread condemnation, here and abroad, of human
rights abuses committed by its officials and cohorts. The paradox reveals a fundamental split
among Pinoy voters: some want anti-corruption and security measures but are strangely willing
to tolerate authoritarian policies that violate human rights and democratic principles.
Our politics are complicated and contradictory, as shown by Duterte’s and Marcos’s
administrations’ contrasting geopolitical stances, which pivot for and against China during
territorial disputes in the South China Sea and a relationship with the US that fluctuates. There
are already enough political contradictions confronting the nation without adding the delicate
balancing act of expressing national sovereignty while engaging in pragmatic diplomacy with a
growing regional power.
It is already a political conundrum that Marcos Jr., heir to a dictatorship that the People Power
Revolution aimed to overthrow, is now Duterte’s successor and has an opposing stance on many
issues. It reflects the crystal apparent contradiction in the country that the connection between
the two traditional political (trapo!?) and supposedly “unified” camps is so unstable, with former
political alliances and dynamics in constant upheaval. Seemingly misinformed individuals sadly
see liberal democracies as failing to tackle systemic inequality and corruption, and there is a
sense of disappointment with the conventional political class. On the other hand, anti-
establishment politicians are often preferred, even if their strategies are reminiscent of previous
authoritarian regimes and have yet to prove any lasting merits.
This is the peculiar setting where Vice President Sara Duterte finds herself amid the stormy
waters between her dad’s and her erstwhile partner’s factions. The speculation about the Duterte
camp’s intentions to depose Marcos’ leadership has only served to heighten the already-present
political tensions and cast doubt on the country’s political trajectory. Everyone is watching
Sara’s every move in this complex political drama because it can potentially change the course
of our politics.
The problem boils down to the choice facing our voters: between the appeal of authoritarian
policies and the ideals of representative democracy. Sara’s blatant maneuvering through the
political attacks and maneuvers between the Marcos and Duterte camps highlights the
electorate’s need to assess their options properly. Concerns have been raised that, despite the
glaring incompetence of the present administration, voters may be swayed anew by charismatic
or popular (but not necessarily competent nor experienced) figures rather than candidates who
have proven trustworthy, committed, and would provide leadership based on core values.

Everyone should take a moment to ponder the Duterte administration’s mistakes and the
continuing dynamics under Marcos Jr.’s jetsetting and (so far) lip-serving leadership. This is a
chance for people to re-evaluate the ideals and principles that should direct their voting choices,
hoping that a renewed dedication to democratic, people-centered, and moral politics will arise.