In the Philippines, the late 2010s and early 2020s is a pivotal stage, to say the least, in terms of political mobility, activism, and administrative competencies. The Rodrigo Duterte administration took on an economic approach to development, specifically in terms of infrastructural advancements. However, this period was also characterized by violations of human rights, unprofessional behavior, and questionable alliances. In its latter stages, the Duterte administration during the pandemic also entailed slow recovery due to unreliable support systems, inefficient project implementations, and faulty policies. More than anything, one of the biggest insights that can be gleaned from Duterte’s reign is that Philippine society [during his time] is one that truly embodies the VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and anxious) world. Thus, the general masses clung onto a strong man figure to navigate around it – and this very nature ultimately determined its immediate future.
The Theme of Unity
Post-Duterte, the 2022 Presidential Elections in the Philippines was marked by a stronger sense of political activism and mobility among many facets of Filipino society. This entailed a significant political divide among two groups – those siding with Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and those siding with Leni Robredo. The former, along with Davao City mayor Sara Duterte, served as the spearhead of the UniTeam Alliance which set its sights towards ending political division in the Philippines. On the other hand, the latter represented themes of democracy, human rights, as well as other liberal values. This division was substantial and clearly riled up most of the society; but the UniTeam Alliance and its promises ended up as the landslide victors, with Marcos Jr. as President and Duterte as Vice President – despite controversial backgrounds and actions. With the prevalence of political polarization and the emergence of newer political developments in the country, only time will tell if their utopic vision comes to life.
Disunity and Political Polarization
Fast forward to their second administrative year, the tensions grew stronger not just among the Philippines’ civil population but also among UniTeam’s spearheads themselves. Instead of unity growing in Philippine politics, governance, and society, chaos is at hand – and it is growing stronger as time passes. During Duterte’s 2016-2022 administration, a significant form of othering was displayed as the administration had a clear enemy with the war on drugs, to which it spared no violence. In the 2022 elections, the two parties previously mentioned were clearly tussling for the leadership position.
In 2024, conflict between the Marcoses and the Dutertes is not only causing further political polarization, but also deterring progress given that both families are essentially the ones tasked to deliver the Philippines toward progress, more so their collective uniting vision. With different priorities and personalities, this tension has also been characterized by mass media propaganda, public controversies, and several Ad Hominem discourses. Additionally, it also goes without saying that incompetency is displayed by both parties, which extends to the inefficient (or in certain cases, non-existent) actions made for development. The Philippines, under the leadership of Bongbong Marcos and Sara Duterte, is not short of any divide. Political polarization continues to be one of the main culprits of its societal issues.
Political Cracks
Recent political cracks simultaneously contribute to and are affected by the growing political polarization in the Philippines. The demotion of GMA shows the volatile nature of Philippine politics as the former president’s fall from grace illustrates the shifting power dynamics and alliance-based status quo in the country’s political sphere. Whether as a triumph of justice and accountability or a politically motivated act to undermine opponents, a division was created. Next, the ICC’s investigation of the Drug War objectively follows national interests but the very supporters of PRRD share the former president’s stance against international intervention as a violation of sovereignty. While this, in theory, should not be a cause for division, it is surprising and unfortunate how a dichotomy was established between “the protection of sovereignty” and the protection of human rights.
The geopolitical conflicts concerning the West Philippine Sea also have ties to the divergence of the Marcos and Duterte camps, as well as Philippine society as a whole. Duterte’s approach to the West Philippine Sea dispute took the form of appeasement to avoid major conflicts with China and potentially forge an alliance; however, this was criticized by the Marcos camp and its authoritarian history as they advocate for a more assertive stance in taking ownership and defending what is truly within the Philippines’ possession. This divergence in strategic priorities worsens political polarization, with each side framing the issue through the lens of their respective ideological positions.
Tensions within Philippine politics historically prove to be dirty in the sense that propaganda, Ad Hominem, and hostility are its hallmarks. In the context of the Marcos-Duterte issues, this perpetuates incompetency, unprofessionalism, and more than ever, division. The toxic environment established by demeaning political rhetoric strays away from constructive dialogue and reinforces partisan divides, and to be blunt about it: personal. As the rhetoric rises, so too does the polarization, with supporters of Marcos and Duterte rallying behind their respective leaders while vilifying their adversaries. Speaking of supporters, the EDSA People Power gave birth to the power of prayer rallies as an act of mobility and activism – and the intersection of religion/philosophy and politics further widens polarization, as differing Moral Codes fuel ideological divisions and perpetuate societal rifts.
Democracy and The Path Forward
Clearly, unity is a world ahead, and the Marcos-Duterte conflicts ironically highlight how a utopian promise to the general masses backfired, given how the very leaders that promised such a vision are those responsible for its non-attainment. So, it is clear that much more needs to be done by the Philippines’ leaders. Before anything else, another important question to ask is: what does this imply regarding democracy? Surely, it does not take much deep diving to discover how polarization in politics and the sheer incompetencies of leaders ultimately degrade democracy in its truest form. It is simply because factions, alliances, and leaders-turned-idols eradicate democratic institutions – people care more about who the leaders are and what they promise rather than what they are doing; people are engulfed with a sense of belonging under the political factions; and people become fans rather than entitled and empowered citizens.
While striving to be an objective opinion piece, and following the theme of polarization and divergent perspectives, room for objective (or subjective) discourse is welcomed. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied how this political polarization within the Philippines’ governing families impacts the stability and effectiveness of the current Marcos administration in the short term, and in the current trajectory that it is in, would likely erode Philippine democracy further. With the dominant political families clearly in play, one can only assume a future where more Dutertes and/or Marcoses are seated in the coming elections, or if unity will ever be achieved. But then again, only time will tell.
The UniTeam alliance of President Bongbong Marcos and Vice President Sara Duterte is truly ironic—making unity their main campaign message, but failing to unite with each other now that they are in power. The dispute between these two personalities is resulting in an increase in polarization in the Philippines—showing how politics in the country is heavily based on personality rather than ideology. You mentioned that “people care more about who the leaders are and what they promise rather than what they are doing” and this is very evident among Filipinos. I think that Filipinos fail to remember or recognize in the first place that they have the right to hold leaders accountable. And so what happens is, when these leaders are unable to live up to what they had promised, Filipinos are drawn to stand firm in their decision to support their chosen candidate. I believe that in a way, there is also a sense of pride there. People wouldn’t want to admit the shortcomings of the politicians they support because that would be a reflection of their judgment. This results in fanatic behavior that doesn’t take into account what their “idol” stands for but only blindly follows. As a consequence, society is becoming more polarized and democracy is becoming weaker.