Supporters wait for their respective candidates during the filing of Certificates of Candidacy outside the Manila Hotel on October 8, 2024. Jonathan Cellona, ABS-CBN NewsTowards the tailend of 2024, I received a message from a journalist asking me to reflect on Philippine politics last year. 

The exact words were “how has the political landscape in the Philippines ‘evolve’ throughout 2024”?  I was taken aback by the question with the little that I thought of the word “evolve”.

Straight away I thought, the word evolve generally refers to “development”, that is change for the better, and thus it is a word that describes something positive. 

There is however nothing that I could think of that is good or positive a change that we’re seeing, of the changes that started to unravel last year. 

Much of what we have seen were more of worsening, the realization of what we have always feared to happen if nothing is done to put in place a system that could structure our politics.

2024 in Philippine politics: 'Uniteam' collapse, POGO ban, deepening PH-China row

Again and again, I could only describe our politics as liquid if not cacophonous as it remains archaic; very much subject to the anachronistic socioeconomic structure that is ironically shaped by unrestrained hustler if not prostitute type of capitalism.

The reality of it all is as complicated and incongruous as it sounds in the preceding sentence.  Precisely why what we have is a kind of politics that is exasperating as it is disappointing.

In no time I replied to the question saying “I don’t think the word ‘evolve’ is applicable. Nothing has changed especially if we’re talking about ‘development’. 

Politicians are more brazen now, even flaunting their running simultaneously as a family. 

If there’s any change, it’s the worsening of the already problematic political dynasties as political families become dominant at the expense of what seems to be moribund significance of political parties.  If we don’t change the system really soon, we can’t say what could still be worst.”

'My sworn duty to slay the beasts': Youth leader files candidacy for Las Piñas councilor

None of this rather short paragraph of a response was used in the article that came out. Perhaps my reaction the question was too much to consider. Especially if one’s vantage point is limited only to the latest issues, what’s happening recently in politics, it would be difficult to have a more comprehensive view.  What’s worst, this makes one more vulnerable to consider more of popularized perspective and lose the more objective viewpoint.

These were my thoughts when I answered the second question: “In what ways could the current issues facing the Marcos administration, such as concerns over the General Appropriations Bill, PhilHealth issue, and the feud with the Dutertes, impact its public image and voter support in the upcoming midterm elections?”

I replied that there is nothing new in the issues raised. Issues of indiscretion and abuses also hounded administrations before but what’s worrisome now is the orchestrated effort to demonize the government in order to allow previous leaders to get back to power — via extra-constitutional means, audaciously calling on the military to withdraw support and for people to mass in EDSA — with the backing of a very interested foreign power. 

Again, the solution is not to return previous leaders but to change the system to allow the people to participate more and meaningfully and have political leaders more accountable. But that’s what’s most difficult and has been proven to be short of impossible.

Of course, just like my first reply, none of my answer was considered in the article.

WRAP: Festiveness, families, citizens' frustrations mark start of election season

'REPREHENSIBLE 2025 NATIONAL BUDGET'

The point I’m trying to make is that it is a pity that our politics have become more and more personal. 

The 2025 national budget is reprehensible when it comes to the unprecedented increase in unprogrammed projects.

On the other hand, not allocating funds in the budget for PhilHealth requires a more thorough consideration, that is to actually look at the financial situation of the agency. 

WRAP: Cuts to DepEd, PhilHealth as 2025 budget bill nears finish line

To my mind, there can only be a good reason for our lawmakers and the President giving PhilHealth that kind of treatment in the budget.

Then again, however technical these issues are, social media has been nothing but rowdy, calling the President and the leaders of the legislature names and frightening the public that the PhilHealth will no longer be able to provide the benefits due the people because the agency was not allocated additional funds in the budget. 

So the question now is if PhilHealth will indeed cease to function as it is intended to be.

We have to be vigilant and more discerning. The country is besieged on all political fronts. 

It’s no longer a simple choice between people and or groups vying for leadership.  We have to really consider learning more, that is going out of our way to be more informed as issues become more and more technical and complicated. 

We need to be better informed in order to do more, and be able to be effectively vigilant. 

If we cannot and are not going to be forthcoming, we might be surprised that one day there will be nothing left in government that we can say is somewhat still working for the people.

With the way things are going, it can be headed to a breakdown in law and order that even the left wouldn’t be glad to see. The reason is there might not even be anything left to rebuild from. 

It is not going to be the kind of civil war that we have come to know other countries had gone through before. The end point will be unprecedented.

Meta’s fact-check pivot to hit orgs in PH, ‘Global South’ worst — experts

MEDIA AND SOCIAL MEDIA NO LONGER AS DISSIMILAR

The media is most fundamental in the overall scheme of things, especially in this kind of politics where there is no system of representation and accountability. It is only the media that links those who govern and those who are governed. 

The media is thus a key measure of how dire the situation is. What and how the media is shows what and how the country is. If it is able to perform its fundamental role, it can only mean the country is still in a good position.

Much has already been written about social media and it is generally hailed as a great leveler. 

Everyone and anyone can use social media.  Anyone who has a smart phone or the internet can shoot write and shoot a video and post. 

The end product of which can be posted, offered and, especially if it gains traction with many reposting making it popular that it goes viral, assumed to be “news”. There’s no need for the whole process of going through the producer to the last line of editing and given the go of the editor.

It goes without saying that social media doesn’t require the same implements of the traditional media. 

You have to have an army of reporters that gather the news and submit it to the news desk so that the whole process of finalizing a report is undertaken.

There will also be an army of production staff in the case of broadcast media, which recently of course have become common to all traditional media as print and broadcast seem to have merged and adapted to the age of social media. 

Traditional media therefore is a complete enterprise.  It is not a one man or a band of a few who write or shoot video and post them online and popularize it.

The difference there is quite obvious.  In the social media, “reporting” can be as quick as “real time”. 

Anyone can be reporting or posting at the exact time an event is happening or an issue is unfolding.

Anyone and everyone who happens to be in the right place at the right time and has smart phone and access to internet can “share” which is now often considered the same as “report” to the public what is happening.

Traditional media has been demonized, and why not? 

In the first place the ones who own and control traditional media are also the same people who carry weight in politics if not in politics themselves.  

Recently, many of our political leaders have gone out of their way to acquire media outlets, presumably so that they can have ready access if not control of what comes out in the media. 

“Intent” is therefore the issue that is raised against traditional media, that only the interests of its owners who are also likely to be active politically comes out of the media.

OPINION: Politics at a critical juncture in Philippine history

EMPOWERMENT AND EQUALITY A 'SIMULACRA'

The same could be said of social media however.  Yes, sharing or reporting can be real time. There is no way of saying though if what one sees, hear or read is actually the complete picture. 

In one viral video, for example, a popular political personality visited a close associate in the hospital.  The emotion that is shown is heart-rending that one can only think of persecution.

I’m not sure though how many saw the “whole video” where this popular politician asked the guards if the media can be allowed in to cover the visit and if it was possible for everyone to take videos and document the visit.

The popularized bit of the video has been seen and considered by many as “spontaneous”. 

The real, complete picture, on the other hand, says otherwise.

Intent is thus a consideration not only for traditional media but also to social media.

Just like traditional media that is owned and assumed to be controlled by the same interests, social media can and is also likely to have become the same.  

The missing element in this comparison is the need for the whole process of producing to editing before printing or publication or broadcasts happens in traditional media.  It is not just a process; it is a procedure that involves a number of “technical” and “professional” people who contributes in every step in producing the news. 

Yes, the owner can influence what comes out of the media, but control cannot be as absolute as it is in social media where what is shared is mainly the call or decision of a single person who posts or has access to the social media account.

The idea that everyone has access and that anyone can post and share in social media is what makes everyone assume that everyone is empowered as a result. 

Yes, everyone has access and anyone can post and share but not everyone will have the same impact and therefore influence.  That still depends on how many friends can help you spread whatever it is you are trying to escalate. 

And then there is also a need for money and thus capital to amplify the posts.

The feeling of empowerment and equality in social media is more of what Baudrillard calls a “simulacrum”.

Social media is supposed to empower the many but more and more it has become just the same, empowering more those who are already empowered.

The purpose and the net effect, which is to influence the people is the same albeit that it is becoming more real time.

It is a leveler as it can swiftly bring down anyone who has significance at any given time or at the same time prop up anyone who has not been known or significant to become important.

This latter feature is important as it gives us a way to at the very least temper the negative on social media.

SOCIAL MEDIA A CHECK ON MEDIA AND VICE VERSA

Ultimately, if we make sense of this comparison, the realization is that we need both the traditional and the social media. 

Both have strengths and weaknesses.  One can check the limitations of the other. 

For example, when something suddenly becomes viral in social media, the first thing that is ask is if it has already been taken up by traditional media. 

If both have covered the same issue or event, and especially if the substance or the specific contents of the report are the same, then it is likely to be true and not another fake news.

Filipinos online get news mainly from social: study

'NO CURRENT LEADER IS CLEAN AND CAPABLE'

As it is right now, no one among our leaders can be considered as clean and capable. Perhaps that is impossible to have, again given the kind of political setup that we have. 

Real information on the other hand is fundamental in at least determining who is saying what is true and right. 

It is no longer amusing when political leaders keep on destroying each other’s reputation and acting as if they are the ones who are good.

Intent is the worn-out argument being used by political leaders. 

Good intent after all is the easiest to claim but difficult to prove to the public. 

Would one have good intention if they cannot share what they are planning to do and why?

The Crucible: 2025 midterm elections

Would one have good intention if they cannot share who are actually behind their actions and inactions, who is supporting who and what? 

Precisely, given the political setup that we have, there is no institutional way of knowing any of these in any way. 

Then again, one has to ask, would one have good intention if they are intent on grabbing power no matter the means?  Would one have good intention if they wouldn’t mind resorting to extra-constitutional means, which everyone knows will have far-reaching effect on the country’s economy? 

Then agai, this is expected in politics. 

They could do it a lot better though by being more substantive, by letting the people know, making them understand more so that they can decide for themselves what is really true, if not what is right and useful for everyone. 

Politics should be more than personalities, a lot more than wanting to take over government by misinforming or not informing the people enough.

It is expected for any political leader to aspire more to lead in a higher position, but to do so by deceit is disparaging democracy as it is out and out a disservice to the people.

Such an oxymoron as leadership is supposed to serve the people and therefore promote their interest. 

Anyone will promote his or her own interest but as a leader, one’s interest should be one with the people.