F. Victor G. Manangan / Millennial Universe
I will simply start with the observation that this year’s Philippine and US presidential elections share some commonalities.
First, both elections have, as their winners, candidates who were as unlikely as they could get to become serious contenders for high public office, much more actually win them.
Rodrigo R. Duterte, while a long-time mayor of Davao City, has never been a part of the national political scene, the traditional breeding ground of presidents. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, while enjoying recognition as a property tycoon and fame as a celebrity host, has never run for public office. Thus, in political terms, both are outsiders. Of course, it is axiomatic that in politics, an outsider has an outsider chance to win, which means zero. Yet, they went on to be elected president.
Both found their candidacies to be sailing on perilous waters at the beginning.
President Duterte had no solid political machinery behind him. He was also constantly put in trouble by his remarks that were considered way too candid, provocative and oft-color by the mainstream media and the electorate.
These certainly mirror Trump’s handicaps: He, too, had the habit of spinning trouble through his microphone. And he had to contend with the contempt of the vast segment of the Republican Party even after he had secured its nomination.
But both. Duterte and Trump sailed on, their sails buffeted by the fervor and enthusiasm of the voters.
But how can two candidates, outwardly so politically incorrect and politically awkward at times, if I may say so, managed to do that?
The answer is another commonality and this lies in the economic, social and political atmospheres that have enveloped both countries.
In recent years, economic growth in both countries was not equally felt by their citizens. This has inflated social convulsions.
In the US this manifested itself in racial conflicts. In the Philippines, while somewhat less pronounced, the resentment felt by the lower classes is both pronounced and real. Then, there was a widespread perception on the part of Filipinos and Americans that their governments do not work, as well as they should, even as they are headed by relatively popular presidents.
Government paralysis is seen in the still traffic of Edsa and the gridlock between the President and Congress in Washington, D.C. All these, and more, have contributed to a feeling of widespread discontent for the government, or in broader terms, the establishment—the traditional political elites of both countries.
With this anger directed to their governments, both the Filipino and the American people were hungry for fresh paces, for leaders that were not part of the establishment of their countries, leaders who could offer new beginnings and directions. This hunger was so intense that it made them overlook the unorthodox qualities of both. Duterte and Trump, qualities that, in other times and other conditions, would have made voters flinch.
The desire for change made Philippine voters overlook Duterte’s provocative policy proposals and American voters glossed over Trump’s racism and crude attitude toward women so that another try to “Make America Great Again” can be had.
Another commonality: Both leaders ran against candidates who admittedly had longer credentials and more experience than either of them. Duterte’s main rival was Manuel A. Roxas II, a scion of a wealthy family, a former senator, an incumbent Cabinet secretary, the anointed successor of a popular president. Trump’s biggest opponent was Hillary Clinton, former first lady, former senator, former secretary of State and the recognized heir of another popular president. Yet, for all the popularity of their mentors, Obama and Aquino, for all their credentials, for all their recognized abilities, they were soundly defeated. Why? Fairly or unfairly, the people’s anger over the establishment were directed at them for they, in their respective elections, were the faces of such establishment. And again, fairly or unfairly, the perceived shortcomings of the ruling governments where they came from were attributed to them. Of course, we have to acknowledge the manifestations of charisma that both Duterte and Trump have displayed.
But in my opinion, it is this anger on the part of the voters—their feeling of alienation for their government—that were most responsible in sweeping them both to power.
Whether the two presidents shall be well-judged by history will depend on their performance in office. Whether they shall be viewed as transformational leaders or eventually turning into parts of a much-reviled establishment, we have yet to see.
But it is worthy to note that in 2008, Barack Obama was elected on the premise that he shall bring change to the Washington establishment.
In 2010 Benigno S. Aquino III won on the promise that he shall pry the government from the corruption of the traditional sitting leaders. From all this complex unfolding of politics, from all these uncertainties of the future, at least, something certain can be written: For better or for worse, the most prevailing electoral trend for now seems to be the politics of the outsider; the most reliable strategy is to run against the establishment.
F. Victor G. Manangan, 28, of Cabatuan, Isabela, is a law graduate fulfilling his dream of becoming a feature and political writer. The views expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect that of the BusinessMirror’s.