Are they committing the same mistakes now, which could potentially make them obsolete in the future?
What lessons have the opposition taken away from the elections of 2016 & ‘19? Are they the right ones? What lessons could they have drawn, but are refusing to because it would mean admitting some painful truths to themselves? What are the implications for the future?
As Congress opened just a week or so ago, the opposition was licking its wounds from the beating it took at the polls. None from its senatorial slate were elected to the upper house. Not even re-electionist Bam Aquino or former senator Mar Roxas who lost to Pres. Duterte in 2016. In the lower house, they’ve been reduced to 18 members, whom you could fit in the back of a Toyota HiAce.
Following their electoral drubbing at the polls, the opposition doesn’t seem to show any signs of internal introspection or changing course. They don’t seem interested in taking stock of just what happened, so that they can make necessary internal changes or change tack. The reason for this seems to be that they have taken away the wrong message from the electorate. Here are some of the wrong lessons, that I feel the opposition are drawing from the last two elections:
1. That it was black propaganda that destroyed them at the polls, which must now be countered with their own black prop, or what could be called: when they go low, we go lower.
Ask anyone from the yellow camp why they lost. They might say it was Duterte’s troll army spreading fake news on Facebook and other social media outlets, inflating the role that socmed plays in Philippine politics.
Yet their previous administration in 2016 had a massive warchest, political machinery and propaganda outlets at its disposal. This may have helped Mr Roxas who was perennially at fourth place to reach second on election day. Some say the Comelec may have played a role in that. We still don’t know the full extent of this, as its former Chair Andres Bautista, an Aquino appointee went into hiding, following allegations that he had amassed for himself a huge pile of hidden wealth, ironic since he came from PCGG.
In 2019 we saw the anonymous Bikoy videos spreading fake news which went viral over the internet seeking to discredit the president, and by extension, his senate ticket. Did the opposition stage this, as the man who now claims to be Bikoy, Peter Advincula asserts? Recently a certain Dennis Borbon was arrested for seeking to scam solons by pretending to be a local official seeking financial help. Borbon claims to have been paid by senatorial candidates of the opposition at the last election to besmirch admin candidates. Did the opposition try its own hand in the dark arts?
I’d like to narrate a conversation I had with a former staff member of one of these senatorial candidates who worked in the VP’s office at the time. This was a few years ago. I had shared with him my former association with Cocoy Dayao the blogger and site developer who went into hiding following the expose linking him to several websites that were critical of Duterte. Cocoy to his credit when he recruited me to write for the Propinoy Project in 2010 following the election of PNoy, never interfered with my writing, even when I wrote articles critical, if not scathing, of the administration from 2010 up to 2014 when I paused to undertake a development project in the Philippines.
It was during the 2016 election that I parted ways with Cocoy. He was then actively supporting Mar Roxas, and I was writing stuff critical of Mar’s record. It was then that he began trading barbs with me on Twitter, and I noticed his lines were taking on a slightly offensive tone. It was later revealed through senate hearings that he was being paid by the Presidential Communication Office as a consultant supposedly for his work as a propagandist.
Anyway, the staff member of the VP to whom I was recounting this expressed frustration with Cocoy for being so “stupid”. Nakakainis yang Cocoy na yan, he said. Bakit? I enquired. Because he was so stupid to leave information on his websites that could identify him as the owner. In other words, for not covering up his tracks well enough! Oh, so what Cocoy did was fine with you, so long as he didn’t get caught, I thought to myself.
If that is a reflection of the thinking in the opposition’s camp, then I truly shudder to think, what has become of our democracy, where rather than conducting an open debate about ideas, we’d rather influence the public’s mood clandestinely.
If yellow propaganda exists, and I’ve just indicated that it does, why did voters not fall for it in both 2016 or in 2019? And what made them more susceptible to listen to counter narratives? Either the yellow forces are bad at communicating their message, or there is a genuine credibility gap that exists due to their poor record in office that permits other narratives to be more accepted by the public.
The message that the opposition seems to be pushing now is that the fear factor is spreading, causing the public to give high approval ratings to Duterte in surveys. Or that Duterte does something outrageous like shutting down the PCSO operations to distract voters from the real issues like what’s happening in the West Philippine Sea.
Again, if that were the case and Duterte is a dictator, then his approval ratings ought to be closer to 100%. The fact of the matter is even PNoy was popular until the end of his term, even though some pent up frustrations did exist. I’m sure an anonymous poll conducted by a non-government party whose reputation depends on its being independent, would be enough for people to respond honestly.
And this doesn’t explain other results where polls indicate the public taking a different view to the government on the West Philippine sea. The opposition can’t cherry pick the polls they like, which support their argument, from the ones that don’t. They can’t have it both ways.
The argument that people don’t respond honestly in public polls is akin to the bobotante argument. It doesn’t give voters enough credit in either case.
It also absolves the opposition of any responsibility. Surely, when a president’s public satisfaction rating is assessed, this is done in relation, not only to his recent performance, but also to what the alternative is. Yes, he may be flawed, but in contrast to what the other side does or offers, he might be the only game in town.
Instead of riding along with the president, due to fear or intimidation, perhaps the public are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, because they feel there simply isn’t a viable alternative. And that is an indictment on the opposition. It’s at this point, that I’d like to share with you a quote from the late-Sen. Benigno Aquino, Jr. made the year before he returned to the Philippines only to be assassinated. He said,
“I know, for a fact, we cannot go back to the old society, where a few enjoy the fat of the land, and the many suffer. But today, in spite of martial law, the rich are getting richer and the poor are growing in numbers. That cannot be. The meaning of our struggle is to be able to return the freedom. First, you must return the freedom so that all segments of our community, whether from the left or from the right will have the right to speak, and then in that open debate, in that clash of debate in the marketplace, we will produce the clash between the thesis and the antithesis and we will have the synthesis for the Filipino people.”
Rather than matching black propaganda with their own black ops, perhaps the opposition needs to draw a different lesson on where they’ve strayed from that struggle that Ninoy was speaking about, to create an open society with open, rather than clandestine, debate.
2. That they needed to counter the public’s perception of them as out of touch elitists by reaching out to the fringes of society, rather than the broad middle class, or pander to a narrow set based on social issues.
This was Leni’s formula for winning the VP. Or was it? Did she really win, is a question that is still being litigated at the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, due to allegations of poll fraud, made by her opponent Bongbong Marcos.
But anyway, whatever the case, VP Robredo went from virtual anonymity to coming within a whisker, on the eve of the election, and may have actually clinched it. That should count for something. And it does. As the titular head of her party, the responsibility falls on her to guide it through this difficult period in opposition.
It was her personal story as an attorney and advocate for the lowly that endeared her to voters, so why not steer the seemingly out of touch liberals to follow her lead. She quickly undertook her Angat Buhay program, which acts as a broker between charitable organizations and needy communities. Helping people on the fringes or laylayan of society gain access to much needed support.
This quickly morphed from an economic narrative to a social and cultural one, as she began to construct a coalition of groups on the fringe, based on lifestyle choices. She started by picking up the cudgels for legalising drugs as a counterweight to Duterte’s anti-drugs campaign. This found its way into the political manifesto of Otso Diretso in the May polls through the Ahon Laylayan Koalisyon program, which she had candidates sign.
From the economic fringes, to those on the fringes of mainstream values and social mores, like the LGBTQI community, the pro-abortion rights groups, and pro-legalisation advocates. This was stoked by her Ateneo college think tanks which lent it a kind of feminist/leftist/ environmentalist feel.
This led them to be popular among woke millennials but, it didn’t really offer anything much for the broad middle classes of society who were more concerned about bread and butter issues.
The current emphasis on feminist and gay rights, legalisation of marijuana and other drugs makes them look even more elitist and out of touch. Like a bunch bespectacled latte sipping liberals with no idea how the other half lives.
To be fair, the enlightened, idealist, college crowd can be potent electorally. Mrs Robredo is following in the footsteps of Miriam Santiago and Raul Roco, another Bicolano, whose first campaigns for president electrified the youth vote. But, as we have seen in the past, there are limits to what this vote can achieve. To be successful, a broader coalition is always needed.
So rather than merely pandering to these groups on the fringes, perhaps the opposition needs to turn its attention to the ordinary, working families in the broad sections of our society.
3. That they need to brand themselves as the party of human rights in contrast to the heavy handedness of the government in its drug war, or its conciliatory approach to China on the WPS issue. This is their rights-based approach.
This was perhaps why Otso Diretso’s bench consisted mostly of lawyers. Erin Tanada and Chel Diokno, heirs to two titans of the old senate and of the parliament of the streets. Romy Macalintal, an election lawyer. Their campaign manager was Kiko Pangilinan, another lawyer. Mrs Robredo herself started her career as a community based lawyer.
The contrast between Otso’s platform vs MaBaGoKoTo’s was stark. It isn’t true that the last election wasn’t about ideas. There were two theories of development at play. On OD’s side was a theory that said development happens when you give people rights. Women, indigenous people, young, gay, and so on.
On the other side, MaBaGoKoTo was emphasizing development through better service to the people. Better infra, better access, better support, better organisation. That was their theory of change. OD focused on assembling a coalition of narrow, disparate groups. The admin focused on helping the broad sections of society, and by so doing lift all boats.
The emphasis of OD on civil and political rights drowned out other narratives that one of their candidates re-electionist Bam Aquino had credibly developed around fostering entrepreneurship and innovation, which had an aspirational tone that could have played well to a much broader audience. This message of optimism was lost in the posturing that OD did on the WPS with their trip to Palawan on jet skis. This was an opportunity lost.
By losing Bam in the senate, the opposition has lost more than a seat, it has lost a future contender for higher office. The VP is all alone now as the sole contender in 2022. She seems vulnerable with her election protest case and with recent charges leveled at her by the govt. But it seems the opposition continues to plod down this disproven strategy.
Kiko Pangilinan’s magna carta for commuters seeks to legislate rights for the riding public. The problem isn’t the lack of rights, the problem is the lack of investment in infrastructure, which they are opposing everytime they question the government’s loans from China.
The DOF has already shown through the brilliant work of ASec Tony Lambino that adjusted for exchange rate expectations, China’s loans to the Philippines are priced competitively when compared to Japanese and other lenders, and they don’t account for the lion’s share of the government’s overseas borrowing program.
Kiko’s public consultation poses the question: “Bakit hassle mag-commute sa Pilipinas?” And his solution is to draw up a magna carta.
This just plays into the admin’s hands. The reason why it has been such a hassle to commute, isn’t due to the lack of rights, it’s because of broken promises for instance to extend the LRT to Cavite, which the previous president made, with a guarantee that if it didn’t happen, he’d gladly let himself be run over by a train. A train that didn’t exist, because the government didn’t procure it, or that broke down because the government fired the competent contractor and hired a newbie, know nothing contractor.
It’s a hassle because the PPP’s of the previous administration never materialised, by and large except in the Powerpoint presentations they made. It’s a hassle because the previous government wouldn’t raise new taxes to pay for much needed infrastructure. It’s a hassle because the previous administration cancelled a number of dredging projects that could have prevented floods that clog up the streets.
This approach by Sen Pangilinan reveals a certain political tone deafness on the part of the opposition. If it feels it can win back voter confidence and trust by offering up paper rights that don’t mean a thing, cause it ain’t got that thing, then they certainly deserve to be where they are now.
This is related to the opposition’s stand on the West Philippine Sea issue. They claim to have won on the basis of a ruling in the Hague, which doesn’t settle the issue of sovereignty, but simply invalidates China’s 9 dash line claim on historical grounds.
The status of the rocks that China has built on was also settled. No, they aren’t islands that any country can claim sovereignty over, nor do they create sovereign rights. The most one can claim is a 20 nm radius surrounding them.
The opposition tries to fry the admin on this issue, because it took a more conciliatory stance on this compared to the previous antagonistic they took when they were in charge. The Atin Yan! Campaign is a sign of Philippine nationalism. Nationalism which has led countries to go to war in the past, and display xenophobia at home.
The so-called abandonment of this government’s sovereignty over the islands. No I don’t think the government has abandoned its claim over the Spratlys. The government is conceding that it can’t impose its sovereign rights while China is poised there. There’s a difference from claiming sovereignty and imposing sovereign rights. That in essence is the problem with the rights-based approach.
Unless the Philippines builds up its own naval assets, it can claim all it wants, but if China throws its weight around, nothing will be able to stop it. Good fences make for good neighbors. So if the opposition wants us to preserve our rights in the WPS, it needs to come up with better solutions than simply lodging complaints or taking China to international courts, which may have jurisdiction, but don’t have the ability to enforce their rulings. That’s our job.
So, rather than legislating rights for every conceivable interest group, perhaps the opposition should get to work drafting plans that would improve the lives of Filipinos, by changing facts on the ground.
I could go one, but in the interest of time, maybe I’ll just leave it there for now. These three are what I believe are the wrong lessons that anyone should draw from the events of 2016 and 2019:
- Needing to go low when your opponent goes low
- Needing to pander to a narrow set of interests
- Relying on unenforceable rights, instead of changing facts on the ground.
Why are they the wrong lessons?
No admission of where they went wrong. No contrition. There was real anger in 2016 and 2019.
If so why was Pnoy still so popular?
Well so was Bill Clinton, but his VP Al Gore bore the brunt of people’s frustrations with the Clintons. The same happened to Mar Roxas, in part because of Mar Roxas, but also because there was pent-up frustration and anger against the administration.
The yellow forces were perceived by voters as arrogant, hypocritical, emitting clear signs of a party that had been in the ascendancy for too long.
Their narrative seemed tired, dated, lumang tugtugin. Voters had lost faith after Luneta, Yolanda, and Mamasapano, felt they had given enough chances to them. Nagsawa na. Nadala na ang tao sa kanila.
And their lack of contrition merely demonstrates to voters that they haven't learned a thing, and can't be entrusted with the reins yet. Possibly ever, the way things are going.
Will they be condemned to irrelevance as a result?
Yes, if they continue down this path. Unless they learn the right lessons from history, they might be obliterated in 2022.
What are the right lessons? I’d like to offer five of them:
1. Stop the scapegoating. Take responsibility for past mistakes. Show genuine contrition and remorse. For once, I’d just like to hear someone from the opposition say, “Yes, mistakes were made. We messed up big time, but are now going to avoid committing them again by reforming ourselves.” I’d like to hear that, and probably so would so many others who have abandoned them, simply because there is no admission of wrong-doing. I believe we Filipinos are a forgiving kind. If there is some contrition and ownership of past mistakes on their part, I believe that would go a long way towards assuaging the public’s anger that still remains from previous failures committed by the previous administration.
2. Practice what you preach. It’s not enough to claim good governance and rule of law, you actually need to practice it. Stop using whataboutisms as an excuse. Do the right things. A corollary to this is: It’s not enough to be good, you need to be effective too. As the group that espouses liberal democracy, they’ve historically taken hits from the left and the right. From the left, Joseph Estrada hit them for not doing enough to alleviate poverty, by prioritising debt repayments and opening our broders to trade under Cory and Ramos, over social programs. PNoy addressed this by expanding social spending during his term. They’ve been hit from the right by emphasizing civil and political rights, but not protecting the community from criminal elements or securing our borders or investing in much needed infrastructure that alleviates the daily struggle to get to work to earn a living. Being good should not prevent you from being effective. Follow what Ninoy said, find the synthesis between left and right, through open debate. Work with the administration on securing communities and protecting borders, through practical, legal measures. Work with the administration to engage in prudent fiscal spending on the right kind of infrastructure that would boost productivity and innovation in the country to create jobs and economic opportunity for all and reduce the number of have-nots that way.
3. Give democracy a chance. Stop trying to unseat or topple a president before his or her term ends. Stop calling voters bobo. Stop even implying they are gullible. Win the debate through open discussion, not through clandestine smear campaigns, or through name calling. The danger in claiming it was black prop and troll armies that won Duterte the presidency, is that be delegitimizing the election, you can lay the ground for undoing the results. The opposition has gotten so used to that game of tearing down, first with Erap Estrada, then with GMA, now with Duterte. But when they had a chance to rule, they stuffed it up in many ways. It’s time the opposition ceased being the party of the resistance, and started to accept the verdict of the people, which clearly repudiated their brand of politics and governance. It’s time they listened to the people who clearly want our leaders to work together again for the common good.
4. Find a new economic narrative. Bam’s was a crucial voice that has unfortunately been lost. The Philippines is now making waves in a couple of surveys. The Startup Genome project recognizes Manila’s emerging fintech ecosystem. The Global Innovation Initiative of the WIPO ranks the Philippines for the first time with other leading nations that punch above their weight as innovators.
This will be aided with the enactment of the PH Startup Act originally proposed by Bam Aquino, and the PH Innovation Act of Loren Legarda, earlier this year. We can help the sectors being left behind, but we can’t lose sight of the engines for future growth, that will provide us with the means to help the vulnerable sectors. We can’t stop disruption, but we can at least guarantee that we ride some of its waves. The opposition must find a new economic narrative that is broader, expansive and optimistic about the future, rather than being merely sympathetic to the ones being left behind. We have the talent, the creativity as a nation to compete, globally. We have built an amazing platform with free education from K-to-Tertiary and with the universal healthcare law. Let’s work on fiscal and other incentives to boost private investment, build infrastructure and encourage research, innovative collaborations and investment. There is a new narrative there. I’m just not sure they have the right people to capitalise on it.
5. Reach out. Broaden your appeal. Stop living in your echo chamber. Stop insulting people, lumping everyone critical of you as a bunch of deplorables. Hate to say this but Kris Aquino may be their last remaining hope. OMG I can’t believe I have to go here. Yes, Kris, who took a more conciliatory approach with the administration both before and after the elections of 2016 and 2019. She’s been lambasted by the opposition for it, but she seems to have a better feel for the pulse of the nation than any of the LP stalwarts. If Ninoy was able to reach out to Marcos after being jailed for nearly 8 years, most of which in solitary confinement, the opposition should be able to reach out to Duterte and his ilk. Kris shows the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment