It\u2019s striking that so much of the talk about the results of the 2025 mid-term elections \u2013 especially about the incoming Senate \u2013 is framed in terms of Marcos vs. Duterte, or of a \u201cthird force\u201d that is neither Marcos nor Duterte but still defined by that binary. The illiberalism of the country\u2019s personality-driven politics is often lamented, but the overriding discourse in news reports, social media and conversation confirms that it\u2019s still in play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
More to the point \u2013 the dominant narrative in post-election political discussions isn\u2019t about prospective laws and policies to change the lives of millions of Filipinos for the better. It\u2019s about who\u2019s up and who\u2019s down, who\u2019ll vote to convict or acquit the vice-president in her impeachment court, who\u2019s plotting for 2028, and similar power plays. The conversation isn\u2019t about what kind of country we want to build and how, but simply who gets to rule it \u2013 leaving the inequitable status quo untouched.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Personality distractions<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This isn\u2019t just leftover campaign momentum from when trapo candidates prioritized visibility, personality and patronage over concrete platforms or policy commitments. It reflects how more and more politicians and the political system itself are wired today. More and more, we should ask: What are these politicians actually fighting for?<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s hard to name sitting politicians whose trajectory began with a deep understanding of the country\u2019s social, economic and political problems, who cared enough to reflect on solutions, and who had the boldness to seek public office to make those solutions real. According to Pulse Asia pre-election surveys on senatorial candidates, Leftist candidates embodying this had awareness ratings of a few percentage points to some 30% at most.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s far easier to name politicians whose trajectory came from their family name, who spent their life amassing personal fortunes even at the expense of others, or who equate successfully entertaining millions with deserving public office. Pulse Asia\u2019s surveys showed the top senatorial candidates had 97-99% or near universal awareness ratings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is indisputable that there is little substantive difference among the major political figures when it comes to core economic policy positions. The elite consensus favors the obsolete \u201cfree market\u201d neoliberal globalization model \u2013 incentives for foreign investment, glorification of open trade, privatization of essential public services, and deregulation to favor profit-making by big business and transnational capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There\u2019s consensus, even if the process isn\u2019t efficient. If policymaking is sometimes slow, this is not from any ideological contestation but from institutional inertia, rent-seeking by politicians, or positioning for fiscal, contractual or regulatory advantage by business elites. The disagreement isn\u2019t about what\u2019s to be done, but rather in who benefits from policies and how gains are distributed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ang Lumang Pilipinas<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Regardless of which party or candidate wins, politicians converge ideologically so the underlying economic model remains the same. Traditional politicians from across the spectrum don\u2019t challenge the structural inequalities embedded in this model and are unable to even imagine transformative alternatives aimed at uplifting the marginalized majority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is no real battle of ideas because there are no contending visions for society. Political discourse is consumed by personality clashes, scandals, and spectacle rather than by debates on the policies so urgently needed to radically transform the economy to uplift the majority. Lawmaking grinds on \u2013 not because of ideological difference but despite the lack of it \u2013 to produce the same profit-oriented, market-biased and politically safe measures acceptable to big business elites and foreign capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Are things any different after the 2025 mid-term elections? When the new senators are lined up, the conventional wisdom counts them as five (5) Marcos, five (5) Duterte, and two (2) pink\/neither.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The two incoming senators seen as aligned with neither of the Marcos or Duterte camps reintroduces more liberal politics in the Senate which is a key national arena of struggle, and likewise with their counterparts taking a couple of partylist seats in the House of Representatives (HOR). They are vital footholds in difficult battles to come against serious self-serving abuses of government power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the numbers still look very different if, instead of using the Marcos-Duterte binary, their positions on one or more essential policy reforms are used. To take just a few \u2013 a billionaire wealth tax, family living wage as the minimum nationwide, free public health care, expanding free public education, nationalized utilities, trade protection and intensive support for farmers, and national industrialization policy to create jobs. These are policy directions where the liberal opposition must head towards if it is serious about change beyond safe rhetoric \u2013 bold, progressive positions that challenge elite interests and uplift the majority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From 5-5-2, the number becomes 12-0 against real, meaningful and necessary socioeconomic reforms. The elections gave the illusion of political choice, but it now appears to have just reshuffled non-reformist political actors \u2013 likely resulting in the machinery of governance in the Senate, House, and provinces continuing to serve entrenched elite economic interests above all. From this perspective of substantive policy reforms, there\u2019s nothing dramatically new about the 5-5-2 result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Same, same, same<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, on the economic front, there are no changes on the horizon. The closing years of Marcos Jr\u2019s term will not see any steps towards industrializing the economy or developing agriculture, increasing formal work or raising family incomes, or giving universal access to essential services \u2013 all of which are badly needed to improve the economic well-being of millions of poor rural and urban Filipinos. None of the winning senatorial candidates even seem aware of the huge global economic shifts underway that will bear down heavily on the Philippines in the years to come.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The economy will likely keep serving the profits of a few and the inexorable rise of their wealth, while millions of Filipino families are left further and further behind \u2013 just as it has under the Aquino, Duterte and Marcos Jr administrations of superficially different political character over the last two decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Social Weather Stations (SWS) reports the number of self-rated poor families increasing from 11.2 million in 2015 to 15.5 million in April 2025, corresponding to an increase in the share of those in poverty from 50% to 55% over the same period. In contrast, the combined wealth of the currently three richest Filipinos grew six-fold (563% increase) from Php278 billion in 2015 to Php1.84 trillion in 2025, according to Forbes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps not coincidentally, those three billionaires are also behind three of the country\u2019s biggest political parties which control some 40% of the Senate, HOR and governorships \u2013 with their control of the Senate even increasing after the\u00a0mid-term\u00a0elections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big business may have aesthetic preferences for one politically correct candidate over another to keep up liberal appearances. But when it comes to policies to protect or promote their profits, the shallow gene pool of political contenders is more than acceptable and deserving of their campaign contributions. They always call it right \u2013 the annual profits of the Top 1,000 corporations keep growing and doubled (79% increase) from Php1.14 trillion in 2015 to Php2.04 trillion in 2023, according to BusinessWorld.<\/p>\n\n\n\n People first<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The main countercurrent to this in the elections were in the form of the Makabayan bloc and other Leftist candidates who consistently presented alternative platforms grounded in pro-people, pro-poor, and nationalist social and economic policies. In stark contrast to the \u201cfree market\u201d orthodoxy of the political mainstream, the Left envisions a radically different socioeconomic order \u2013 and they campaigned to inform, educate and empower. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Left\u2019s victories in reaching out to and convincing millions to support them in the face of political repression and a skewed electoral system are real, and the most vital contestations today over the nation\u2019s future.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The conversation isn\u2019t about what kind of country we want to build and how, but simply who gets to rule it \u2013 leaving the inequitable status quo untouched.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":16606,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"single-withbanner.php","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":"","_expiration-date-status":"","_expiration-date":1748435864,"_expiration-date-type":"draft","_expiration-date-categories":[],"_expiration-date-options":[]},"categories":[1,2048,2050,3],"tags":[3660,3926,2807,2972,116],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16604"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16604"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16604\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16643,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16604\/revisions\/16643"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16606"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibon.org\/tl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}