Image Source: Our Brew 

In democratic countries, elections are seen as a great equalizer for each individual, as they are entitled to free expression, regardless of their background. However, this is not the case in the Philippines, as the 2022 election has turned into a battlefield of shame and perpetuated the war of intelligence among voters—further eroding the very foundation of Philippine democracy.

Internal Rift

The term “bobotante” is characterized as someone who impedes the country’s progress due to their presumed unthinking ways of voting, enabling corrupt and incompetent politicians to secure political power. It directs the blame to the poor voters, as they often become targets of manipulation. This argument can be categorized as a powerful form of alienation since it denies or dismisses the voices of poor voters in a democratic process because of the firm belief in the notion of “vote buying.” It reduces the people’s electoral choices to an assumed lack of intelligence, alienating them from participating in political discourse and undermining their roles as active participants in the electoral process.

In the 2022 national election, the Commission on Election (COMELEC) identified it with the highest voter turnout in the long history of the Philippines, with 83%—highlighting the growing political participation and engagement among Filipinos. But in spite of that, this election cycle evidently deepened the existing political divide among Filipino voters due to the resurfacing of narratives that questioned one’s perceived intelligence.

At that time, the “us vs them” mentality was between the supporters of the 2022 presidential candidates: Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Leni Robredo. Although, in the context of the Philippines, this mentality was further localized in the form of ‘rational’ vs. ‘dumb’ voters. Supporters of Robredo (Kakampinks) are viewed as the ‘rational’ ones, while Marcos supporters (Marcos Apologists) are dismissed as ‘dumb’ voters or ‘bobotante’; otherwise, it goes the other way.

This internal rift among Filipino voters roots in their different stances and views before and after the victory of Bongbong Marcos. For the supporters of the Marcoses, they viewed the victory of Marcos Jr. as another opportunity to experience what they believed was the “golden era” of the Philippines. Meanwhile, for Robredo’s supporters, it was a nightmare, as it reflected the apparent success of historical revisionism, mental gymnastics, and disinformation orchestrated by the dictator’s family to sanitize their name. They saw it as an apparent rejection of so-called “radical love” and “good governance.”

Henceforth, the heart of polarization rooted in elections in the Philippines can be traced back to the voter-shaming narrative, particularly the “bobotante” label, because it reinforces divisions between different groups of voters.

The Politics of Shame and Polarization

The political discourse in the Philippines is reinforced by the politics of shame. It is not just about engaging in conversation over the contested concepts in the field of politics; rather, the discourse expands as a battlefield between the “rational” and “dumb” voters. Instead of engaging in fruitful dialogue to create a meaningful democracy, it is overshadowed by voter outrage. In this case, the supporters of particular politicians, “Kakampinks” and “Marcos Apologists,” resorted to personal attacks and public shaming to delegitimize the personal choice of the opposing side. This form of polarization is a threat to democracy because it undermines and weakens the basic principle and norms of ‘democracy,’ and it fuels authoritarian tendencies to thrive. The reciprocal cycle of shaming does more than assign blame—it distorts the reality of political decision-making because the narrative neglects how weak institutions enable the cycle of manipulation.

The persistent and deepening polarization of the Filipino voters is fueled by different social media platforms. Considering that information is free-flowing on digital platforms, it created a bubble that fed one’s personal biases. In fact, voter shaming is not a new phenomenon in the context of Philippine electoral history; it is a recurring pattern that resurfaces every election. According to Wataru Kusaka, other terms like DDS, Eraptions, and Dilawan are additional labels to shame voters, particularly the marginalized groups, by questioning their morality and rationality. This pattern of voter shaming raises the question: Is the poor vote not a thinking vote?

Is the Poor Vote not a Thinking Vote?

Political scientists challenged the idea of ‘dumb’ voting to address its impact on democratic erosion, particularly in the Philippine context. Research suggests that a poor vote is a thinking vote, as their decisions stem from their life experiences and struggles. Even if it is a process of selling one’s vote, it is still a well-thought-out process guided by reason and logic. These decisions are not random or thoughtless because they reflect the economic hardships and limited opportunities for the poor, which they often see as strategies for survival.

This perspective highlights that voting behavior is also shaped by system inequalities. Electoral outcomes are influenced by weak institutions, political dynasties, poverty, and political patronage. The ‘bobotante’ label only exposes the deep-seated tight class divisions in the Philippines, as it disregards the ability of each voter to reinterpret narratives to make rational choices due to their economic background.

In a democracy, regardless of socio-economic status and educational background, every citizen is entitled to their own voice in shaping the nation’s future. That being said, we can argue that the ‘bobotante’ label is just a mere victim-blaming narrative associated with anti-poor connotations.

Rethinking Our Path Forward

The frustration and outrage of voters over the election results are highly understandable, particularly on the presidential rivalry of Robredo and Marcos—representing “good governance” and “authoritarian nostalgia.” However, our call for an accountable and transparent government should not come at the expense of alienation and exclusion. The ’bobotante’ narrative not only promotes harmful stereotypes, but it also shifts the blame away from the real culprits of our struggles: traditional politicians, weak institutions, disinformation, and poverty.

Rather than attacking the voters who voted for whom, efforts should be directed at fostering a healthier political discourse that acknowledges and empowers the voices of each individual. Let us collectively ensure that regardless of background, every citizen can exercise their rights and obligations as democratic actors. It is now time to debunk the myth of the ‘bobotante’ in Philippine politics and rethink how political decision-making is made; this concept only deepens the divide in our already eroding democracy.

In the following elections, let us focus on strengthening various democratic institutions, as the fate of democracy rests on this, not on the intelligence of each voter. Combating polarization may be difficult, but it is harder to see the continuous deepening divisions in our society without doing anything. It is better late than never. Baby steps, as they say; we can start by respecting every vote, regardless of who casts it. At the end of the day, what we want to achieve is a democratic system where no one is forced to choose between survival and principles.