by Rommel A. Curaming
I imagine talking to fellow well-meaning progressive-liberal
friends, families and colleagues about the outcome of the recent elections. I’d
tell them that I hope this decisive election results would be used as an opportunity
to re-set our mindset and rethink key assumptions to reinvent what liberal politics
entails in the Philippines. Liberalism-progressivism is in crisis in various
parts of the world, and it is up to us liberals to renew it to save it from
irrelevance.
First, it is about time we get off our moral and
intellectual high horses that prevent us from realizing our blinders, licensing
us to be self-righteous and disrespectful of other people’s choices. It is
ironic that as liberal-progressives we’re freedom- and equality-loving people and
yet we do not treat others who think differently as our equal and cannot allow
them freedom of choice.
Second, let us be courageous enough to take a close and
honest look at what really happened, good and bad, since Marcos took power in
1966 and be open to a multi-faceted, more textured or nuanced history of the
period. It is a kind of history that was flattened, erased or suppressed by the
hegemony of fellow liberal-progressive interlocutors who reigned over public
discourses since 1986, but they forced their way into the social and other
media in the past decades. Historical fairness dictates that the ups and down
in Marcos’s 20 years at the helm cannot be reduced to soundbites or memes of pure
dark age of violence, human rights violations, economic crisis and corruption that
the post-1986 hegemonic narrative would like us to believe. Fifty million
Filipinos spread out in thousands of islands had varied and shifting experience
within those two decades. Many suffered to a varying extent but there were many
others as well who enjoyed and appreciated, even long for, those years even up
to now. People have the right to remember whatever they remember about the
Marcos years. To each his/her own.
Third, let us be aware of the intellectualist biases that
hamper our effort to reach out to common people. Just as fact checking proved
inadequate to turn the tide of support for Trump in the US, it cannot also do
the trick in the Philippines. The presumption that people’s support for BBM
rests mainly on the success of misinformation or propaganda, which drives
fact-checking efforts, need to be seriously re-thought as the whole idea is
condescending. It is precisely one of those that turns-off a lot of people when Kakampinks try to convince them. It is also untrue as many people who
voted for BBM have their own valid reason for doing so. Denying it is yet
another sign of liberal hubris that enable us to fantasize that we know more and
better than people who actually live their own lives.
More importantly let us stop deluding ourselves that the
Marcos camp has the monopoly of misinformation, propaganda and historical
revisionism. The “Never Again!” narrative surrounding Martial Law as well as the
hegemonic memories of the EDSA “Revolution”, which propped up the political
interests of certain groups, are themselves propagandistic and historically
revisitionist (am writing an article on this). This is particularly true if
viewed from the “suppressed history” of many Filipinos who remember fondly and
lived peacefully and happily during the Marcos years. The painful experience of
anti-Marcos activists, rebels and other people who were victims of the Marcos
regime deserve to be remembered and be given justice, and the Marcoses ought to
be held accountable for all the wrongs they have committed, but it should not be
privileged to solely define the long Marcos era. Doing so is partial to the
standpoint of certain groups while invalidating the contrasting experience of
many others. History is naturally complex and such complexity can only be
erased by political interests, of which both sides are guilty of promoting. More
consequentially it denies the people opportunity to learn from the ideas and initiatives
Marcos made during his time, which is precisely what the post-EDSA
de-Marcosification efforts did, and which many of those who voted for BBM wish
to restore and pursue to their conclusion.
For decades, I was a believer. I totally believed in the accuracy
of the anti-Marcos and the “Never Again” narratives. Since the mid-2000s while
doing a PhD, however, I was stunned by realizations upon reading more about
Ninoy and Cory Aquino and Marcos Sr. and the politics of that period. Rather than the
Manichaean, good vs evil, portrayal that dominated the public discourses since the
1980s, I saw that they were of the same political molds, and the attribution of
hero vs villain was imputed by the currently hegemonic side in the struggle for
supremacy against the backdrop of contrasting standpoints and shifting political
climate. Doing fieldwork in Indonesia in 2005, I was surprised by ordinary Indonesians’
expression of nostalgia for Suharto’s New Order era (how could they long for a
dictatorship??!! I wondered). The experience made me re-think some fundamental
questions about the Marcos years. These include the possibility that it may be just a
matter of time before Marcos’s memories would come back in full force in the
Philippines, which in fact happened. I also remember being repulsed to the core by how the illness and eventual
death of Cory Aquino in 2008-2009, and the recurrent reference to yellow ribbon
and Ninoy’s martyrdom, was milked dry by political groups and the media (later
to be called dilawans). As things unfolded it became clear to me that it was a convenient
pretext for propelling PNoy’s presidential ambition. I felt cheated and humbled.
I’ve thought all along that my UP education made me intelligent enough to see through a
propaganda. I wondered about the subtle and not so-subtle mind conditioning techniques that enabled otherwise self-thinking persons like me, or so I thought, to be
taken for a ride. Now long aware of the modus operandi, it is easy for me to
understand and respect the decision of throngs of people who voted for BBM, even
if I did not vote for him. Rather than a bunch of bobotantes, I take them as
ones who have their own legitimate reasons. Perhaps, they already realized that
just like me they too were hoodwinked for a long time.
Fourth, it is about time we let go
of our arrogance to suppose that we have the monopoly of morality, critical
thinking, right discernment, capabilities and love for our country. People who
voted for BBM or any other candidates also have these in equal measures. Because
of our presumption of intellectual and moral superiority, we ignore or dismiss
them offhand, calling them names that reflect badly on our being liberal. For
all our bitter critiques of authoritarianism (e.g., Marcos and Duterte), it is
ironic that we liberal-progressives have also tended to be authoritarian in pushing
down the throat of others our favored liberal ideals, ideas and approaches. Let
us stop acting as if we are the only rightful vanguard of the ongoing socio-political
evolutionary progress. Let us refrain from assuming that we are the only ones
who can truly understand the plight of the people and have the right to speak
on their behalf. We, in other words, can make use of a good dose of humility,
which liberalism requires but many among us liberals seem to have long forgotten.
Fifth, let us abandon the fantasy
that BBM won just because of cheating, fake news, trolls and the savvy use social
media, and the well-oiled machinery for vote buying. There is no denying these
played a role in his campaign, but let us not insult our intelligence by
ignoring the magnitude of his mandate, and by giving cozy excuses for our own
shortcomings. We can definitely do better than that. Those excuses may be
comforting but they divert our attention from the need to address the serious
problems with Leni’s campaign, many of which were anchored on the liberal
fantasies that we need to confront head on. First is Leni herself. She is not a
trapo but she embodies the traditional liberal politics in the country, which
has grown repulsive to a huge segment of the population, particularly since
PNoy’s time. She reminds many of the media-driven myth-making that surrounded
Cory Aquino in the 1980s. Despite Leni’s sincerity and clean image, she is a
hard-sell to 70-80% of Filipinos who approve of, even long for, a decisive or authoritarian leadership
exemplified by Duterte. Leni’s campaign failed to organically relate to the hopes
and concerns of warm, sweaty bodies on the ground. Her strategists seem
oblivious to the signs of the fast changing times. The very strong showing by
BBM in the 2016 vice presidential elections should have already raised a red
flag that many people no longer cared (if at all they ever did) about the sins
of the Marcoses and the Never Again narrative. The early surveys favorable to
BBM whose conciliatory stance and simple message of unity resonated well with
many, should have signaled earlier on that people have grown tired of
divisiveness and moralizing in politics; what they cared for were unity, public
service, economic advancement and continuity of Duterte’s legacies. But Kakampinks
precisely focus on moral crusades and the anti-Marcos issues, as if flogging a dead
horse. The holding of the miting de avance in Makati, reminiscent of the anti-Marcos
high-heeled, yellow protests of the 1980s, was a hallmark of this cluelessness. They
are so self-assured that what they regarded as important were also what most people
cared about. They constructed echo chambers that nurtured the illusion of a surging
bandwagon in favor of Leni, making them complacent about the need to address
the paralyzing elitism of the campaign. Casting doubts on the scientific
surveys, they created a parallel universe that nourished the fantasies of impending
success and unduly heightened supporters’ expectations and along with it the
profound frustration after the resounding defeat. More importantly, they lost opportunities
to adjust strategies early and effectively. When they adjusted using
house-to-house campaign, they bask in the supposedly unprecedented and
transformational character of a movement, but seem unmindful of the alienating
effects of the elitist (intellectual and otherwise) presence, accents and all,
of the pink-wearing campaigners. The contrived nature of the approach was
hardly lost on the target voters.
Sixth, it is about time we
disabuse ourselves of the illusion that our liberal stance is a moral stance,
and an absolute one at that. Just like other stances, it is a power- and interest-driven political stance and any move to cloak it with moral absolutism ought to be suspect. Our tendency to moralize politics arms us with a sickening
holier-than-thou attitude. It sets us to pontificate about what should politics
be—clean, honest, principled-- rather than how can politics be carried out to
serve the needs of the people on the ground. That 70-80% of Filipinos approve of Duterte
and for that many of us are quick to call them stupid and enabler of indecency, speaks volume to how detached
we are from realities of the time. We talk a lot about hifalutin ideas of
democracy, human rights, justice, morality and accountability and dismiss and
demonize populism as the supposed anti-thesis of and a threat to democracy,
while most people care about emotional connection, relatability, conviviality,
respect and empathy—traits that are well nurtured in populist movements.
Rather than merely blaming the ‘stupidity’
of others, or the misinformation and cheating machines of the Marcos camp, let
us take this opportunity to reinvent the liberal-progressive politics in the Philippines
by, among other means, making it more relevant, responsive and respectful to feelings and needs of the people beyond the Kakampink crowds. That less than 27% of Filipinos voted for Leni should make us realize that hard core liberals are now a minority, so we should do something about it. Analytically, this means allowing populism to be synthesized within the fold of liberal democratic theory,
rather than keeping it as liberalism’s negative Other. After all elitism alone
is not inherent in liberalism; populism as well, for the liberal vision
includes everyone, the people. The elitist character assumed by liberalism
through the centuries owed much to the hijacking by intellectual elites. Let us
use our superior education to truly understand the viewpoints, hopes and aspirations
of people on the ground and make liberal democracy truly for and by the people.
How exactly, I don’t know. We all have to figure things out as this is a very tough
collective task, especially because it entails shedding many of our long-held
habits of the heart and mind. Foremost of these habits is our self-righteousness,
the sense of moral and intellectual superiority which we are often unaware of.
I am convinced that despite the many problems that accompany liberal tradition
since Enlightenment, the core of this project is the way to go for a better present and future. There is no doubt in my mind that it is worth pursuing and fighting for.
