Election helplessness
There is a sense of fatalism among Filipinos when it comes to this year’s elections compared to previous rounds. In the time of former president Duterte’s campaign in 2016, he was able to ignite a passionate voter base, most of whom were excited for a non-Manila president who could usher in Davao-style change geared toward discipline. Idealism in politics peaked during Leni Robredo’s campaign back in 2022, when many first-time and some disenfranchised voters were galvanized to participate in the events leading up to the election. The transformation of Leni as a rallying point was, in part, a combined reaction to the brutality that characterized the previous administration, the fear of a Marcos returning to Malacañang, and having a corruption-free and service-oriented candidate to support.
As high as the hope was leading up to the 2022 election, the steeper the fall to hopelessness for those who were looking for a genuine changing of the guard. President Marcos claimed a landslide win, alongside the former president’s daughter securing the second-highest position in the land. The victory of the “UniTeam” seemed to indicate that Filipinos, at the end of the day, preferred more of the same.
At closer inspection, however, the voting outcomes—and persistent voting for political dynasties—seem to be less a desire for a status quo but a mistrust that change can ever happen. This is learned helplessness. Filipinos have learned the hard way that their personal circumstances will not change regardless of who they vote for. Whoever wins, their life remains hard. The cost of living will still be expensive. Crime and violence still run rampant. If there is a change, it is usually for the worse. New policies and rules mean that the red tape gets longer and that there are more people we have to pay to get anything done. Given this long-standing experience of helplessness, it would make sense that people would rather choose suffering that is familiar than something unknown which might bring even more pain.
Another impact of helplessness is the difficulty in recognizing long-term gain. If change has any chance to succeed, it must be immediate. Change must be so keenly felt, not just in newspapers, but out on the streets. People must experience the change themselves to counter the helplessness and acknowledge that change is possible. Passing bills alone is not enough; they must feel its beneficial effect. Systemic change, which requires long-term vision and planning, will go unseen by people with learned helplessness. Vote-buying, for example, works because money in hand is the short-term change that can be felt. Campaign promises that are overly technical tend to be dismissed as naïve or out-of-touch. Promises of quick concrete changes tend to gain more traction, whether followed through or not. Politicians know this and have no problem making unrealistic promises—offering everybody housing, scholarships, solving traffic within six months, P20 per kilo for rice—because they know the strong visual of such a change is enough to get them the votes. The actual solution, or how we can arrive at these desired changes, doesn’t matter because feasibility and sustainability are issues for the long-term.
In a way, this is how authoritarians offer their version of change so effectively to citizens with learned helplessness. They enforce immediate change either via executive orders, like Trump in his first 100 days, or by force, like with extrajudicial killings. You can feel the difference right away. There is suddenly silence in the streets. Opposition and criticism disappear. Authoritarianism will always have its loyal supporters, who mistake silence for peace and compliance for discipline. This is also why the liberal opposition tends to look disorganized and weak: they are seldom successful in offering immediate change.
This national election on Monday seems especially languid. There is no clarion call for change from any side. The closest to a singular issue leading to block voting is the desire of Duterte’s supporters to protect the political dynasty from legal consequences—the father’s trial in The Hague and the daughter’s trial for impeachment in July—by voting for candidates they can trust to obstruct these processes. Since the last election, the opposition has barely been visible and has not shown significant demonstrations of positive change that would soften people’s sense of helplessness.
The solution to learned helplessness is clear examples of good governance. We need to show that good change is more than just possible, it already exists. This is the catch-22: we need to elect good leaders to experience positive change that will help us feel we have the power to elect good leaders. We need to vote regardless of whether we feel our vote matters; this is how we break the cycle.
—————-
