The apolitical in politics
This is by far the most creative and intellectual explanation or justification I have seen a talking head in the opposition explain their ignominious defeat last May 9.
Unfortunately, it still comes at the expense of the Filipino voter, particularly what the opposition derisively refers to as the bobotantes.
The opposition will still not admit that the reason why they lost is Filipinos have seen the difference between them and the other side of the political equation. It has been the same narrative since 1986. All those identified with Marcos are evil. All those identified with Ninoy, Cory and Noynoy are good. Never mind that Duterte’s win in 2016 signaled the beginning of their end.
Here is where it gets interesting. One morning, he saw a long line of buses parked near that community. He found out they were meant for those who wished to join the BBM rally in San Fernando, Pampanga. To his utter dismay, he saw among those enticing residents to come and join the San Fernando “excursion” some of his own leaders. They were wearing BBM shirts. Horrified but curious to know what this was about, he quietly approached them. “Hi, Prof,” someone greeted him with a sheepish smile, “we’re just going on an excursion.”
My friend left, deeply shaken by what he saw. He never found out who his community leaders eventually voted for. But it dawned on him that political conviction meant little or nothing to these neighbors. Did they join him in his house-to-house sorties for the sake of pakikisama? Were they fooling him? Was it the money they expected to get from the other camp? He didn’t have the answer.
Neither—I’m quite certain—would these voters be able to offer a coherent account of their own actions. One thing is sure though—these actions cannot be explained as proceeding from any consciously defined political position. Bourdieu’s explanation is bleak: Many voters, especially the economically excluded, are painfully aware of their lack of competence to formulate their own opinions on political questions. The result of this is apathy—and vulnerability to all kinds of disinformation and clientelism.
The last quoted paragraph from Randy David’s column is where the title of this article comes from. “These actions cannot be explained as proceeding from any consciously defined political explanation.” “Many voters, especially the economically excluded, are painfully aware of their lack of competence to formulate their own opinions on political questions. The result of this is apathy and vulnerability to all kinds of disinformation and clientelism.”
I do not think that any reader will disagree with my conclusion. The better question is does David’s claim have any basis given the mindset of Filipinos who belong to the D and E economic segments, which make up the bulk of the voting population?
It is no secret that the same D and E segments played a large role in Duterte’s victory in 2016. No matter how much the opposition tried to reverse their support of Duterte by way of the drug war, portraying it as only targeting the poor, it backfired on them because the poor themselves have had enough of the friends and kin who were hopelessly lost to drug addiction.
Duterte won with only 39% of the vote in 2016 but he built on this voter base and expanded it which showed results in the 2019 midterm election where not one opposition candidate was elected Senator.
In the just concluded election, only one Senatorial candidate from the opposition made it in the person of Risa Hontiveros. The only explanation for this is Hontiveros parlayed the largesse she dispensed with as Senator into favors that she called in. She campaigned separately from Robredo which was a wise move because this enabled her to tap into other vote-rich sources in the network of her close friend, former Presidential Adviser on Political Affairs Ronald Llamas. Out of the administration Senatorial slate in 2016 who won seats in that election, only Hontiveros and Joel Villanueva managed to win reelection.
But the larger social question is the role that unexamined emotional dispositions play in electoral politics. If, as we suspect, they play a greater determining role in electoral outcomes than coherent political discourse, then it is understandable why the seeding of narratives or stories through memes, caricatures, and parodies on social media platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Twitter, and the like has become the single most preferred practice in elections today. It is now clear that the object of all such operations on social media is ultimately to manipulate preexisting dispositions, to reinforce or affirm them, rather than to create new ones.
Sowing disinformation narratives is, of course, not new. Gossip columnists do it all the time. What makes it different and more insidious in the era of social media is the ease with which a narrative can become viral in a very short time, giving it a communicative power that allows it to oppose the truths of mainstream social media. This explains why it is difficult to fight disinformation narratives with plain facts. People are drawn to narratives, not because they can be proven to be true, but because these make them feel good.
There is a wide range of such powerful but unexamined dispositions as anti-elite resentment, deep mistrust of government, faith in strong leaders, etc. They lie at the root of the current populist authoritarianism that is sweeping democratic societies in many parts of the world.
As I noted above, social media does not produce resentment, so much as it gives shape to it. The blend of bitterness, anger, and cynicism that is encapsulated and communicated through memes require no verification. Strictly speaking, not all of these images are instances of disinformation, but they serve the same purpose—to tap hidden dispositions and manipulate feelings.
Ferdinand Marcos Jr. played this game very well. He avoided political debate and the reasoned comparison of political programs that would unavoidably touch on factual questions. His campaign rested entirely on the combined myth-making power of the new social media and the old patron-client structures of traditional politics.
David does the Filipinos a disservice because of his bias for the opposition. Was not there any historical revisionism and myth-making with the makeover of Ninoy Aquino’s image from a traditional politician/warlord to a Christian-Social Democrat after his death? Was not this targeted at the so-callled martial law babies who reached voting age in 1984? What of the issue of Hacienda Luisita? The reactiviation of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army? The Muslim-Filipino secessionist movement under the MNLF’s Nur Misuari? The “EDSA Revolution” which was nothing more than a failed coup attempt by Enrile and RAM which succeeded later on with the backing of the US?
What of the historical revisionism of Gregorio Zaide in his history books? It was only after Renato Constantino came out with his seminal History of the Filipino People that the record was set straight. Andres Bonifacio and Antonio Luna were the true patriots murdered by the ruling class because their objectives did not align with that of those whose goals were to accumulate power and money.
It is only recently with the advent of the internet and the plethora of information it brings that Filipinos have become aware of what really happened in the past as opposed to how the truth had been manipulated for the benefit of those in power.
It did not help the cause of the opposition that fate played a crucial role in the history of the last twelve years. Noynoy Aquino became President. He did nothing to rectify the errors of his mother. His Presidency in fact, showed how petty his family can be towards their perceived political enemies. It also revealed how they actually look at Filipinos as evidenced by his actions in Yolanda, the Zamboanga siege and Mamasapano. His empathy was insincere. It was just for show.
The winning margin of Marcos-Duterte over Robredo-Pangilinan cannot be attributed to disinformation and fake news. There is no truth to David’s claim that the average Filipino cannot make the political decision as to who to vote for. The Filipino voter made his decision based on the existing narrative of the past thirty-six years.
Contrary to what David and his ilk would like to believe, the average Filipino voter is not stupid. Collectively, the 31M will hold Marcos and Duterte accountable. Social media is both a boon and a bane. It depends on how you look at it. But surely, Filipinos will not stand idly by if they become aware of anomalies. They will also not be silent on issues which directly affect them. Marcos’ baggage from the past has him under a microscope which is why his burden is heavier. He has to prove his claim that he can do better. He is not taking office under ideal conditions. The pandemic is not yet over. The global economic outlook is under threat from huge debts, high inflation and high oil price made more complicated by the Russsia-Ukraine conflict.
It does not appear that the opposition has learned its lessons from its electoral defeat. It is not the fault of the Filipino people that they lost. They lost because the average Filipino has lost trust and confidence in them six years ago and they did nothing in the interim to restore this trust and confidence. Simply put, the opposition is out of touch with the realities on the ground.
Comentários