What Filipino liberals can learn from the Democratic defeat in the US

(Part 2)

RODRIGO DUTERTE’s populist appeal still resonates with many Filipinos, especially in light of the public’s ongoing frustrations with the slow pace of change and the sense that the elite political class has failed to deliver on its promises. As political analyst Julio Teehankee noted, “The Duterte legacy is not just about his presidency but the emotional resonance that continues to echo through the Filipino electorate.” This means that opposition forces must engage with voters not just on policy grounds but by offering a credible, compelling vision that answers the existential questions of Filipino politics today.

In response to Trumpism, the Democrats must reinvent themselves by reconnecting with their base and offering a compelling vision of the future. As President Barack Obama once put it, “The task of rebuilding trust begins with recognizing the very real fears and frustrations of voters who have been left behind.” This is equally true for Filipino liberals. If they are to effectively challenge Duterte’s legacy and his potential comeback, they must offer more than just critique. They must articulate a vision for the future that speaks to the realities of ordinary Filipinos — their economic struggles, their desire for stability, and their need for meaningful change.

Consider the case of Vice-President Leni Robredo’s campaign during the 2022 presidential election. Robredo, often considered the face of the opposition, struggled to reach beyond her well-educated base. Her calls for a more technocratic approach to governance, focused on rational policies and inclusive growth, did not resonate with a significant portion of the electorate who, much like the Trump and Duterte supporters, were looking for more immediate, emotional connections. Robredo’s defeat exposes the challenge the opposition faces in breaking through to voters who no longer trust or believe in the promises of traditional politicians.

FUNDAMENTALS: THE RURAL VS URBAN DIVIDE
In the United States, the reelection of Donald Trump can be understood as a direct response to what many perceive as a Democratic Party increasingly out of touch with the working-class and rural voters of America. As the party pivoted toward cosmopolitan values and increasingly catered to the Washington elite and coastal cities like New York and Los Angeles, a significant portion of the country — particularly in the Midwest, South, and Rust Belt — felt neglected.

Similarly, one of the most striking features of Duterte’s rise to power — and his enduring political appeal — lies in the distinct divide between his rural mass base and the more urban-centric support enjoyed by his political rivals, including Leni Robredo. This divide is not just geographical but socio-economic, rooted in deeply entrenched class and cultural distinctions that reflect the broader tensions within Philippine society.

Duterte’s political power is especially evident among the D and E socio-economic classes, which make up the majority of the Philippine population. According to the 2018 Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey, more than 60% of Filipinos in the D and E categories expressed support for Duterte’s war on drugs and his strongman policies. These voters, often from rural areas or smaller cities, are typically less exposed to the policies of the political elite and tend to favor strong leadership, which they perceive as necessary to combat crime, corruption, and inequality. This mass base is deeply influenced by a form of political fundamentalism — a belief in the necessity of drastic, sometimes authoritarian measures to restore order and address what they see as a nation in decline.

In contrast, Leni Robredo, who represented a more technocratic and democratic alternative to Duterte’s populism, found her strongest support among urban elites. Robredo, while enjoying widespread backing in Manila and among the country’s more affluent sectors, including prominent families like the Ayalas, Aboitizes, and Lopezes, struggled to connect with the mass base that Duterte had mobilized in the provinces. This urban-rural divide reflects not only economic disparities but also cultural differences. Urban centers, where media and educational institutions are more concentrated, tend to be more open to liberal ideas and progressive reforms, while rural areas remain more traditional and cautious, often viewing such proposals with skepticism.

The cultural and economic distance between Duterte’s rural supporters and Robredo’s urban elite backers is crucial in understanding the political polarization that emerged in the 2016 and 2022 elections. Scholars such as Lina S. Ching in her 2021 study on Philippine political dynamics argue that the urban elite, particularly those in Metro Manila, have long dominated the political discourse, focusing on economic liberalization and democratic reforms. However, these elite-driven policies often fail to address the daily struggles of rural and lower-class Filipinos. In contrast, Duterte’s “pro-people” populism, rooted in his promise to end crime and corruption, resonates with those who feel disenfranchised and left behind by the economic policies that have favored the rich and powerful.

This rural-urban divide is also evident in the electoral results. According to a post-election analysis by The Philippine Daily Inquirer in 2022, while Robredo garnered overwhelming support in urban centers, she was significantly outpaced by Duterte’s allies in the provinces, where his message of nationalistic pride and “restoring order” continued to hold sway. SWS surveys from the same period showed that while urbanites were more likely to support candidates with platforms of human rights and social justice, voters in rural areas favored policies that emphasized stability, even at the cost of personal freedoms.

These regional dynamics underscore the challenges faced by liberal and progressive forces in the Philippines. As sociologist Dr. Felipe B. Miranda argues in his study The Philippine Electorate: A Country Divided (2020), “The division between the urban elite and the rural masses is not merely a geographic one; it is a chasm that reflects competing visions of the nation, where the city represents modernization and the countryside, traditional values.” This cleavage is further deepened by Duterte’s portrayal of himself as a defender of the common Filipino, someone who understands their struggles and will fight for their interests — an image that resonates strongly among those who feel alienated from the political establishment.

The mass base supporting Duterte is often described as politically fundamentalist, driven by a belief that drastic measures are needed to restore the country to its perceived former glory. This political fundamentalism is grounded not just in economic frustrations but in cultural identity. Duterte’s rhetoric, invoking themes of nationalism, anti-Western sentiment, and a return to “traditional values,” appeals to a broad swath of Filipinos who view these ideals as threatened by globalization and the liberalism espoused by the urban elite.

In a 2019 survey by The Asian Foundation, over 70% of rural Filipinos indicated that they viewed Duterte as a champion of Filipino nationalism, while only 42% of urban residents felt the same way. This gap highlights the cultural divide that drives much of the support for Duterte’s brand of populism. His message of restoring “order” and “pride” resonates deeply with those in rural areas, where traditional authority figures — such as local leaders and community elders — continue to hold sway. In contrast, urban elites, often more cosmopolitan and exposed to global influences, tend to prioritize issues of governance, rule of law, and human rights.

The challenge for opposition forces, especially those from liberal and progressive circles, is how to bridge this divide. According to political theorist Dr. Teresa R. Anastasios, in her 2020 paper “Populism and the Philippine Electorate”: “To oppose populism effectively, one must first understand the underlying grievances of the populist base, particularly the rural and marginalized sectors, who often feel left out of the narrative of national development.” This suggests that any future political strategy must address the very real concerns of those in rural areas, offering concrete solutions to their economic and social struggles, while also advocating for a more inclusive vision of the nation.

Understanding the dynamics of this rural-urban divide will be critical for any opposition party seeking to challenge Duterte’s enduring influence. By grounding their platforms in a more nuanced understanding of the emotional and socio-economic realities faced by both urban elites and rural Filipinos, opposition leaders can begin to craft a more compelling message that resonates across the political spectrum. It is only by acknowledging the deep-rooted feelings of alienation among the masses and offering them a vision of hope that the forces of populism can be meaningfully countered.

THE ROAD AHEAD
As the 2025 and 2028 elections loom large, the specter of the Dutertes’ return to national politics poses a real threat to the Philippines’ political future. While the Duterte patriarch has stepped down from his presidential position, his influence remains substantial. Political analyst Julio Teehankee notes, “The Duterte legacy is not just about his presidency but the emotional resonance that continues to echo through the Filipino electorate.” His family and allies continue to dominate local politics, and the possibility of a return to power, whether through a proxy or a direct campaign, cannot be discounted. This impending political comeback makes it even more urgent for the opposition to rethink its strategy.

The liberal opposition must grapple with a hard truth: policy expertise and reasoned arguments are no match for a narrative that speaks to anger, fear, and hope all at once.

As former US President Barack Obama put it, “The task of rebuilding trust begins with recognizing the very real fears and frustrations of voters who have been left behind.” This is the challenge facing Filipino liberals: to move beyond critique and present an alternative that addresses the existential questions of Filipino politics today. It requires a new kind of politics — one that combines empathy with policy, one that connects with voters on a deeply personal level.

(Read Part 1 here: What Filipino liberals can learn from the Democratic defeat in the US – https://tinyurl.com/28x8ugc2 )

Jam Magdaleno is a political communications expert and currently heads the communication unit at the Foundation for Economic Freedom.