Antecedent to Leni Robredo’s declaration of her presidential candidacy in the 2022 Philippine elections, a vibrant pink becomes a beacon of hope initiating a people-led movement that soon rallied for the presidential aspirant’s “honest government” campaign “for a better life for all”. While it prompted a crusade to restore democracy, the Pink Movement contributed to the polarization of the country’s politics.
Amid the six years of terror and draconian leadership under former President Rodrigo Duterte, former Vice President Leni Robredo was at the forefront of the opposition braving the nonstop fake news and political harassment against her initiated by the president himself and his supporters. The nearing end of his tenure and people’s frustration over genuine political change saw an opportunity for the country to save democracy from its dynastic-dominated and repetitive political landscape, sparking a movement with the people at the center.
Parallel to the 1986 People Power Revolution, the Pink Movement was fighting against the comeback of the Marcos family in Malacañang as the late dictator’s son Bongbong Marcos ran for the presidency. Interestingly, the heart of the movement resides in the people pushing for political change and attempting to save democracy amidst its deteriorating status. Evident in their highly-attended rallies, people-led donations, volunteer-driven initiatives, and grassroots-level campaigns, there had been a strong civic participation fundamental in a democracy.
The people of the movement, coming from different sectors and socioeconomic classes, resembled a pluralistic society that welcomes diversity of beliefs, interests, and opinions. Every rally and house-to-house initiative witnessed the active participation of individuals from the LGBTQIA+ community, religious groups, business sectors, labor unions, transport groups, and other sectors which led to the creation of the “For Leni” campaigns. However, this worked only to a certain extent: if you are not one of them, you are met with scrutiny and judgment that does not appeal to the people outside the movement.
While some of the supporters patiently worked on building bridges, others resorted to burning them instead.
Ironically, the campaign of Robredo emphasized the principle of “radical love” as a way to appease and invite voters who were undecided and/or supporters of the other presidential aspirants to join the Pink Movement. While some of the supporters patiently worked on building bridges, others resorted to burning them instead. This misstep of the movement disenchanted people and further excluded them in the long run, creating a rift mainly between the Leni supporters and the Marcos-Duterte fanatics. Also, it did not help that the supporters of the movement exhausted so much energy on questioning the choices of other voters’ support for other presidential candidates. It posed a threat to the movement that was still nurturing its voting base that had yet to confidently challenge the leading Marcos-Duterte tandem. As a consequence, it further polarized the status quo which made it even more challenging for the movement to expand its scope and include more voters in the crusade.
…the movement was a manifestation of the people attempting to quench their thirst for democracy…
Regardless of these missteps, it was self-evident that the Pink Movement was a catalyst for the restoration of democracy. Coming from an authoritarian administration, the movement was a manifestation of the people attempting to quench their thirst for democracy that eroded through the years. The fact that the movement was pioneered by the people and called for the candidacy of Robredo even before she made it official, this people-led campaign is a testament to their aspirations for accountability and transparency through an honest government, which Robredo was known for during her vice presidency. Most importantly, multi-sectoral groups taking part in the movement through volunteer work, donations, and other means accentuated the spirit of civic participation in efforts to restore democracy.
On the other hand, the Pink Movement was also seen as an exacerbation of the polarization in the country. Picking up from Jennifer McCoy’s recent study on pernicious polarization, the main factor is the creation of an “us versus them” structure, evident in their desperation to counter the lies and fake news amplified by the Marcos-Duterte tandem and convince them to switch sides. However, for many voters, these initiatives of the movement were seen in an “elitist” position that attacked the very voting population of the Marcos-Duterte which they even referred to as “bobotante” (stupid voter). We cannot deny that social media has become even more vital in this digital age, and an elitist image coupled with several negative takes thrown against other candidates did not get the movement to an advantage and instead intensified polarization in our society. This went beyond the Marcos-Duterte fanatics considering that even supporters of other candidates were not convinced enough to have a change of heart. Rather, they also perceived Leni and her supporters in a negative light.
The aftermath of the elections showed the aggravation of polarization, with people in the movement resorting to continuously attacking the voters of other presidential candidates, mainly the supporters of the Marcos-Duterte tandem. We certainly acknowledge the frustration of the movement after failing to clinch victory but these resorts will accomplish nothing other than intensify polarization in the country.
In acknowledging the multifaceted nature of the discourse presented, it’s essential to respect diverse viewpoints and recognize incremental progress achieved by the Pink Movement. Nonetheless, substantial efforts and strategies are still required to navigate the complexities and address the underlying issues within and beyond the movement, especially in the crusade of restoring democracy.
First, the movement should take advantage of the number of people they were able to gather during the elections. It should not end after they cast their votes, rather it should start there. One way to do this is to mobilize these multi-sectoral groups to strengthen their networks and solidify their positions at the grassroots level through the consistent presence and activity of civil society and organizations from the lowest unit of society.
Second, more than the people, the political figures who were part of this movement, particularly Robredo and her slate, should build coalitions with other figures in sub-national and national units, learning to compromise principles and ideologies to secure a wider reach. Without doing so, the movement as the opposition force against the incumbents will not succeed in putting themselves in power. This includes teaming up with political figures who have significant numbers that can potentially go head-to-head against Marcos, Duterte, and their allies.
As we reflect on the crusade that the Pink Movement started, let us remember that amidst the challenges and missteps, there is hope. In the words of Helen Keller, “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” Through unity and a steadfast commitment to the principles of democracy, we can build bridges towards a brighter future. So let us move forward, with these lessons in mind, to continue the movement for genuine change and the restoration of democracy.
*Photo by Jasper Pagtalunan, taken during the Leni-Kiko Rally in Pasig City, Philippines
It is such a thorough analysis of the Pink Movement and its role in the recent political landscape of the Philippines! Your discussion effectively highlights the complexities of mobilizing a political movement amidst the polarized climate, however, there are still challenges for the movement. When discussing the strategies for the Pink Movement moving forward, you suggest that political figures, including Robredo and her slate, should build coalitions with other political entities to secure a wider reach, however, it is still a question of how these potential coalitions with established personalities might address the perceived elitism and bridge the gap with voters who felt alienated by the movement’s previous tactics. Moreover, I wonder if it is not too late given that Manny Pacquiao and Tito Sotto are already posturing to ally with the administration. Nevertheless, this is still a step forward for the next elections!
This is a really good read. It also made me remember the good ‘ol days of house-to-house campaigns, social media participation, and the campaign rallies as someone who was also part of the movement during the 2022 elections. But more than the vibrant nostalgia from that time, I was also reminded of what significantly went wrong as I’ve read your blog.
Indeed, there was pernicious polarization. Your quote about burning bridges instead of building them really resonated with me. Throughout the years (even after the elections) one cannot help but witness an increasingly pretentious characteristic of members of the Pink Movement. It shows in quotes recently as in “Sana Tama Kayo, Sana Mali Kami. Tama nga Kami”. (translation: We hope you are right. We hope we are wrong. But we are right.). There was even a sentiment of denial of help to those who’ve supported other candidates and saying that if they are struggling, they “deserve” it due to their poor election choices. It makes you wonder whether the desire was really for genuine democracy and good governance or just to reach a high moral ground to ease off the guilt when we erode our democracy. But at the end of the day, the Pink movement was an outstanding attempt for a grassroots-led political movement, but in the context of this country, we still have a long way to go.