Dubbed by analysts as the “most significant election in the Southeast Asian nation’s recent history”, the last 2022 national elections was the most polarized and most participated with a voter turnout of 83% or 55,549,791 of the 65,745,512 registered voters—the highest recorded since the Philippines democratized in 1987.
The dictator’s son, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. won by landslide against the opposition bet, Leni Robredo. Marcos was able to garner 58.74% of the votes. The world watched the booming support for Bongbong followed by his landslide victory which somehow extinguished the remaining hope for a more democratic form of government after being under the bloody and authoritarian rule of Rodrigo Duterte for six years. The grief of Rorbredo’s supporters soon turned into indifference to those who voted for Bongbong, making the moral clash extend outside the elections. While it is true that the Philippines has long grappled with political divisions, the recent years have witnessed a dangerous escalation into a deep moral chasm. The tendency of non-Marcos-Duterte supporters to dismiss their opponents with elitist condescension only fuels the fire of this divide. The posed moral ascendency of the supposed pro-democracy faction is a crucial element that, if not acted upon, only worsens the state of democracy in the Philippines and may result in a succession of authoritarian regimes in the long period.
It does not take a political scientist to see that the last 2022 presidential forerunners, Bongbong and Robredo, represent two opposite sides of the spectrum. On the one hand, Bongbong represents a continuation of a dynasty, autocracy, impunity and non-accountability from the atrocities their family did. Then you have Robredo who is not a part of any political dynasty and stands for integrity, accountability, transparency, and democracy. Robredo’s campaign relied on a pink crusade of voluntarism from her supporters called the Kakampinks (can be translated to “pink allies”). At first, the Kakampink rhetoric is to not antagonize those who supported Bongbong because they are just victims of misinformation and disinformation, instead they should be approached calmly to build rapport and then slowly lay down facts to counter false knowledge they have prior. However, after the elections, numerous Kakampinks have expressed their indifference to those who willingly chose to vote for the dictator’s son and an authoritarian’s daughter. The Kakampinks have expressed that if time comes that Bongbong-Sara supporters finally reap what they sow, Kakampinks will not be empathetic towards them because they will get what they deserve from their decisions. Marcos and Duterte supporters respond to these sentiments by teasing the other party, saying that they only say that because they are sore losers, and that they cannot accept the fact that their candidate is dull-witted and had no chance of winning from the start.
Moral Politics and Polarization
Moral ascendency, regardless of which side it comes from, weakens the social fabric and leadership that ultimately paves the way for an authoritarian strongman regime. Moral politics, or the concept of a moral divide, refers to the tendency to view political issues through a lens of absolute right and wrong. This phenomenon has become a defining feature of polarization in Philippine politics. Supporters of the Marcoses and the Dutertes frame themselves as defenders of order, tradition, and a rejection of perceived elitism. On the other side, those opposed view themselves as champions of democracy, human rights, and a clean break from a history of authoritarianism. Both sides paint themselves with the righteous brush, leaving little room for empathy, understanding, or compromise—essential ingredients for a healthy democracy.
Social media has become a breeding ground for this moral polarization. Algorithms curate content that reinforces existing beliefs, creating echo chambers where users are constantly bombarded with information that confirms their biases. This fosters a sense of self-righteousness and demonizes those with opposing views. Nuance and critical thinking are sacrificed at the altar of online validation, further widening the chasm. Polarization is not a new phenomenon and is proven to be detrimental to democratic societies. Heightened polarization can explain the perceived anomie in society which results in the rise of support for strongman leaders in both authoritarian-conservative and progressive-democratic style. With the nearing midterm elections, railing of charter change (CHA-CHA), and growing resentment of the Marcos and Duterte factions, civil society should learn and move on from the 2022 national elections in order to build a broad united front that can oppose the narrowest target—the Marcos-Duterte leadership.
Bridging the moral divide
So, what must be done? The first step is to encourage respectful discourse. We must create spaces where diverse viewpoints can be heard and debated civilly. This requires a conscious effort to listen, not just to respond. Since moral differences is the primary footing of polarization, moral reframing is a technique endorsed to ease the divide. Second, we need to foster empathy and compassion. By understanding the motivations and anxieties of those on the other side, we can begin to bridge the gap. Empathy is crucial in addressing indifference, in setting aside political differences. Third, investing in education and critical thinking skills is crucial. A well-informed citizenry is less susceptible to manipulation and more likely to engage in constructive dialogue. Finally, we must empower citizens with knowledge. This means fact-checking information, dissecting political rhetoric, and promoting media literacy.
I acknowledge the deep disappointment many feel towards those who voted for the Marcoses and Dutertes. However, dismantling this moral divide requires us to move beyond such feelings. The volunteerism and spirit of unity witnessed during the 2022 elections offer a blueprint for the future. By focusing on shared values like lifting Filipinos out of poverty and building a more just society, we can create a broad coalition for change. Educating the population regarding the dangers of nondemocratic regimes also includes educating ourselves of our shortcomings. In turn, we must reform our beliefs on how to depolarize the society and be open to dialogue with the other side. Empathy should always be paired with patience in order for it to flourish and have visible results. To accept that the process of depolarizing society is a long and tedious process, and that there will be times that it may seem like the energy put into uniting the people may seem pointless, will always be the starting point of igniting change.
Bridging the moral chasm will not be easy. It demands a concerted effort from all stakeholders—politicians, civil society, educators, and ordinary citizens. As the political science professor Jennifer McCoy argues, polarization can be so difficult to combat because it is our human nature to be agonistic. However, I do believe that there should always be a healthy dose of agonism in a democracy. By fostering respectful dialogue, promoting empathy, and empowering citizens with knowledge, we can begin to heal the divisions that threaten Philippine democracy. A more cohesive and inclusive society, built on a foundation of mutual understanding, is not just possible, it is essential for the nation’s future.
Hi Dan! WHAT A GREAT PIECE!
This op-ed provides me a thorough analysis of the political landscape in the Philippines post-2022 national elections, as the most significant in recent history. With a voter turnout of 83%, the election indeed showcased deep political polarization and high public engagement. I love that you are able to effectively outline how Pres. Bongbong Marcos Jr. achieved a landslide victory over opposition candidate former VP Leni Robredo, marking a significant shift in the country’s political direction. With this, you are able to open up the needed portrayal on the emotional aftermath of the election, emphasizing the escalating moral and political divisions among Filipinos. In addition, I am amazed with how you illustrated the broader implications of this divide, particularly the risk of successive authoritarian regimes if the moral clash remains unresolved.
Moreover, this op-ed is highly beneficial to readers and the general public, providing an in-depth analysis of the 2022 Philippine national elections. It effectively communicates the emotional aftermath and the moral divisions among Filipinos, making it essential for anyone seeking to grasp the current state of Philippine democracy. While the op-ed could benefit from improved clarity and additional supporting evidence, its insights into the risks of authoritarianism and the importance of fostering empathy and understanding across political divides are undeniably critical for navigating the country’s future political landscape.
Overall, I love your depth and analysis, and I believe it serves as a call to action for promoting constructive dialogue and informed civic engagement in the Philippines. Thank you for this!
The points raised in this article is well-articulated. It is true – the 2022 Presidential Elections were indeed the most polarizing of elections in recent Philippine history. I agree – moral politics usually tend to exacerbate pernicious polarization, especially when it is framed in an us-versus-them narrative, which was already set by the preceding populist Duterte regime. Emotive responses to the defeat of Leni were acknowledged as well; providing nuance to the polarization that the 2022 elections caused within the social fabric. The recommendations provided to heal these rifts are promising; establishing middle grounds, promoting empathy, investing in education and critical thinking, and fighting disinformation.
Perhaps what I digress on is how moral politics seemed to have taken place between factions of the same social class. According to Pulse Asia, members of Class D, characterized by those who participate in informal economies such as PUV drivers, market vendors, and those who usually live in cramped yet privately-owned residential spaces, voted for Marcos Jr. This implies another dimension yet to be explored on the nature of polarization present during the 2022 elections – that not only was the polarization taking place in a moral dimension, it is also existent in a socioeconomic one.
Thus, I would like to posit a few things: it may not be enough to argue that moral politics is the only thing that polarizes Philippine society. The polarization between Kakampinks and Marcos supporters may have a social class dimension that motivates their political choices, influences their emotive responses, and stimulates their tendencies to perniciously polarize. This may also mean that approaches to depolarization may need to involve a class perspective – one that provides middle grounds, promotes empathy, and fosters open dialogue that is sensitive to the material conditions that both sides originate from. Overall, excellent work!
Hey Dan!
I’m sure we all have distinct and personal experiences from the 2022 Philippine elections especially the grim result which thrusts us to further study and participate in the politics of our nation. I am personally guilty of the elite condescension that you mentioned. I admit to buying into the “bobotante” narrative, but in retrospect I think this definitely contributed to the further polarization of our society. Dr. Jenniffer McCoy’s lecture really led me to realize this. Our agonism fuels our societal divide which contributes to the larger picture of democratic backsliding.
Allow me to add that, I think there should be either a change in Filipino’s perception of social media or to a larger extent, a revamping of the way social media plays into the politics of our nation. We can attribute polarization as arising from the way our society interacts on social media, after all it is the breeding ground of a lot of antagonism we experience outside of the digital landscape. In this regard, I think that there should be regulations that ensure parity and transparency on social media by setting quotas for social media cites. On the other hand, we need a stronger media literacy foundation for the millions of social media users in our country.
Hi Dan!
Your blog gives a wider perspective and comprehensive analysis of how the profound political division in the Philippines occurred especially with the recent historical 2022 Presidential elections. The insights and ideas were articulated clearly, especially in explaining grassroots concepts and ideas on the subsequent polarization in the Philippine democracy. The standout points explained various factors of polarization from the election, you embody the paper with a black-and-white approach template in giving constructive criticism and comments on the democratic situation of the nation. I appreciate the thought and evidence provided on undermining the importance and role of media literacy and critical thinking for individuals in mitigating polarization. You also provided some solutions and reframing roadmaps in bridging the moral divide and echoing the discourse for democratization during the election. However, I am also looking more for some concrete examples and situations that could compare to other countries in providing practical and intrusive models on the ideas presented, but you emphasize focusing on who should be more accountable for the problems that we are facing with power or even without power. Nonetheless, I love how you exemplify the moral chasm as an enduring and worthwhile process in providing an inclusive and critical understanding of the whole society. The last paragraph was indeed a powerful statement and argument that could lead to action for the readers.
Good job and Great Op-Ed!
Hi, Mx. Dela Cruz!
This article is well-articulated and has done great in uniting the narratives and commentaries accumulated in the 2022 Philippine presidential elections. I like how you utilized moral polarization as a lens in your analysis; this use has undoubtedly revealed a deeper look into Philippine politics as heavily guided by the people’s moral ascendancy. As such, it is indeed appropriate to say that given the events that transpired in the 2022 elections, “moral ascendancy, regardless of which side it comes from, weakens the social fabric and leadership that ultimately paves the way for an authoritarian strongman regime.” When political discourse is dominated by claims of moral superiority, it often leads to a dichotomous view of “us vs. them,” fostering division and intolerance. As such is observed in the case of the Kakampink vs. Uniteam (an electoral alliance formed to support the candidacies of Bongbong Marcos and Sara Duterte).
An attempt to bridge the moral chasm in such a complex political landscape is arduous, but a step toward this must be initiated by the people in power to foster inclusive dialogue that addresses the underlying socio-economic disparities fueling division.
A keener attention on the class dynamics behind this polarization, I believe would add more depth to the analysis of polarization in the Philippines. Overall, this article is outstanding in its attempt to summarize the discussions and nuances brought up by the political environment during the 2022 elections. Good job!