Elections and Party Politics
One of the best settings for observing political dynamics is in the arena of electoral politics. It is here where members of the society test their mettle in gaining a position within government, and it is where traditional politicians commonly jockey to maintain what power they have within the state.
In this regard, Mark R. Thompson (2010) applied the dialectics of Hegel in analyzing Philippine Politics.
The Dialectic analysis style of Hegel followed a Thesis>Anti-thesis>Synthesis pattern of observing the flow of history in society. The Thesis is a current acceptable situation or truth. Anti-thesis is a sitation which arises to challenge the Thesis. Finally, the Synthesis is a resolution of both situations in society. And with regards to Philippine electoral politics, Thompson applied this in conjunction with three (3) election styles.
These styles include:
- Populism - exemplified through Ramon Magsaysay, Jose Marcelo Ejercito (Erap Estrada), and Ronald Allen Kelly Poe (Fernando Poe Jr.). The campaign them is "vote for me because I will be good to the masses (particularly the poor).
- Clientelism - embodied in Ferdinand Marcos and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The electoral base is the rich middle class. These rich middle class are the clients with whom the candidate establishes ties to secure support, usually in the form of monetary funding. Marcos' clients were his KBL party members and his cronies. GMA's clients were the taipans (wealthy ethnic Chinese). It is riddled with corrupt activities since the political candidate owes his or her government office to the clients.
- Reformism - currently self-styled by President Benigno Aquino III. Whose campaign style is not about giving to the masses but all about the idea that the reformist must be elected into the seat of authority because he or she is good.
Thompson equated these campaign (election) styles to the Hegelian system wherein
- Populism is the thesis of Philippine party politics. Politicians, particularly new ones win by appealing to the masses.
- Clientelism is the anti-thesis to populism. Politicians, particularly Trapos use this to counter populist competition in election. The funds provided by the clients are used to a) buy votes, b) fund electoral fraud, c) fund media campaigns, d) fund goons for intimidation.
- Reformism is the synthesis which attempts or rises to solve the status of the state which has been plagued by either underdevelopment due to populism or corruption due to clientelism.
As most dialectical writers agree, the cycle can go back to another thesis. The current synthesis becomes the new thesis. And against it another anti-thesis will come. Thompson suggests that if the reformist regime doesn't provide the needed political goods, then society might demand for another populist ruler.
For those who want to read the full article it is sourced in the syllabus as :
Thompson, M.R.. (2010). After Populism: Winning the War for Burgeois Democracy in the Philippines. In Y. Kasuya, and N. Quimpo (Eds.), The Politics of Change in the Philippines (pp 47-72). Quezon City: Anvil Publishing Inc.
For discussion I want you to post comments either:
- Regarding other politicians using these election styles.
- Your own analysis of the dialectic cycle of populism>clentelism>reformism>populism in Philippine politics.
And add a comment explaining PREDATORY POLITICS as can be observed in the Marcos and GMA regimes. Better comments include descriptions of political activities on how these presidents became predators within the state. How did they manipulate the laws, institutions, situations and people to maintain power? NO REPETITION OF PREVIOUSLY POSTED IDEAS. If its same topic, make sure to extend or elevate your analysis to avoid a rehash.
Thus there should be two topics covered in your posts (First on either campaign styles or dialectics and second on predatory politics). Pls. limit comment posts in two paragraphs containing 4-5 simple and direct sentences each. You may re-post in reply to your classmates comments to further the discussion.
Reference for predatory politics is in the reading listed in the syllabus:
Quimpo, N. (2010). The Presidency, Political Parties and Predatory Politics in the Philippines. In Y. Kasuya, and N. Quimpo (Eds.), The Politics of Change in the Philippines (pp 47-72). Quezon City: Anvil Publishing Inc.
Points will be graded as a 20 item quiz. 10 pts for content, 5 pts for organization of ideas, 5 for composition. Deadline of posts is until August 21, 2012 at 5:)) p.m.
Photo Credits:
Wikipedia. (2012). President Aquino. Retrieved August 2012, from Wikipedia: http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talaksan:Presidentelectaquino.jpg
Wikipedia. (2012). PH Pres Magsaysay. Retrieved August 2012, from Wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/tl/0/08/Ph_pres_magsaysay.jpg
Wikipedia. (2012). Ferdinand Marcos. Retrieved August 2012, from Wikipedia: http://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talaksan:Ferdinand_Marcos.JPEG
ReplyDeletePresident Corazon Aquino I think used both populism and reformism style. She used populism in the sense that her husband was assasinated and that gave her the support of the people. Also, she also used reformism because she wanted a change in the government of Marcos. She gave back the freedom of the people that was lost during the Marcos regime.
Marcos and GMA's regime can be said as predatory politics mainly because they really used their power to stay in office. Marcos regime gave fear to the people and anyone who fought against him was either killed or jailed. On the other hand GMA won against FPJ but obviously she cheated during the elections which was proven during the Hello Garci scandal. The fact that they were the two longest President that stayed in office proves that predatory politics was seen durring their regimes.
-Antonio Lim 3LM3
Populism in the Philippines is very evident because during their campaign, they used poor people to gain their trust and support. Ex President Joseph “Ejercito” Estrada is a populist because his platform was for the people particularly the poor. At that time, Estrada was a popular movie actor and he used his popularity to run for politics. He is also appealing to the masses and that makes him grab the trust of the people.
ReplyDeleteMarcos and Arroyo’s regime is evidently a predatory politics because during their regime, we suffer from grave social disparities. During Marcos’ regime, the people do not have a speak against their government. They are manipulated by the people who have the authority. On the other hand, during the Arroyo’s regime, the corruption has reached the level of the corruption to be found in a predatory state. And she could then attempt to extend her stay in power. Both of their regimes were a predatory politics with the fact that they both overruled the people.
-Angelica Kane R. Estrella, 3LM3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Fidel Ramos used reformism style. Philippines 2000 was his administration centerpiece which aimed to uplift the Philippines as a newly industrialized country by the year 2000. He purported constitutional change of the country and proposed projects like, Charter Change to improve the country's economic situation. I can also say that he used 'populism' since he was endorsed by Cory Aquino for presidency.
ReplyDeleteI can say that Marcos is considered as a predatory politician because of his declaration of the Martial Law. By declaring this, he is extending his rule beyond the constitutional two-term limit, to maintain his power in the state (greed of power). He somewhat oppressed people's freedom of speech and arrested opposition leaders and military activists. On the other hand, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's presidency is also considered predatory in the sense that she used her allies who were dominating the House of Representatives to cover-up her 'Hello Garci' scandal against impeachment trial. Her midnight appointment of Renato Corona as Chief Justice to protect her from possible cases to be filed against her once she step down Malacañang. Plus, Arroyo being a 'predatory politician' is shown in the cases (graft and corruption related) filed against her like the NBN ZTE scandal, the fertilizer fund scam, etc. The predatory elements are much too strong and the forces for democratic reform are much too weak.
- Alvyl M. Zamora, 3LM3
I am not quite sure of the purpose of this cycle; whether this cycle is used to predict which presidential candidate would win the election or to inform us which electoral style the next presidential candidate would be using to win the votes of the people. For me, there is no cycle followed in Philippine electoral politics and that if there was, then I could conclude that our next president would be either a reformist or a populist. However, the dialectic analysis would be able to explain how candidates choose their approach in gaining votes, mainly on who to focus their campaign to and to what style would benefit their motives for running for office. It is but a study of irregular patterns and not cycles on how candidates meet the demands of the voters’ needs for a president. Meaning, the thesis might be reformism at present, but depending on what the people needs, the anti-thesis will remain optional and not necessarily or automatically be populism.
ReplyDeleteCorruption is the commonality among predator politicians like Marcos and Arroyo. Marcos was a “predator” since he embezzled public funds to dollar accounts in several foreign countries such as Switzerland; he took the businesses of oligarchs and made his relatives handle these establishments as his cronies; silenced the media and activists using force of the military; used public funds for his wife’s public parties; and controlled the nation by declaring Martial Law with legislative powers thanks to the 1973 Philippine Constitution. Arroyo was no less of a corrupt official than Marcos since she was dubbed as the most corrupt president in the Philippines. Like Marcos, she also has her own set of cronies; rigged the elections; and she had under-the-table transactions with his people from the House of the Representatives. However, Arroyo was less of an authoritative president unlike Marcos and she was unable to extend her manipulation to a dictatorial nature as Marcos did.
-Justin Benedict S. Mungcal 3LM3
Former President Fidel V. Ramos might be called a reformist. In the sense that he was a military reformist that he accomplished many reforms in the country.Although the former general focused more on his country's economic reform more than political reforms. During his regime from 1992-1998 the Philippines' economy grew. He also used populism as his strategy by being the general of President Corazon Aquino.
ReplyDeleteGMA,daughter of the late Diosdado Macapagal can be characterized as one of the great compriser. Her willingness to have almost any political force or political influence helped her to retain in the presidency. Like Marcos, GMA stayed long in the presidency though she came to power because of popularity and dirty elections. Both Marcos and GMA's regime to presidency sabotaged the presidency election. This provoked the question in the mind of the people of her legitimacy.
-Jerriene T. Signey 3LM3
I think that Populism and Reformism are mostly used in politician's campaign because they concentrate on how to gain support from the people and what changes is necessary for development of our country. FPJ ran for presidency which many people supported because he is a actor and he is known for his attitude of being trustworthy.
ReplyDeleteMarcos and Arroyo was the predator politicians before which made the Philippines suffer. In Marcos' time, he abused his power and declared martial law which everyone knows because many Filipinos suffered. Filipinos were killed if they go against him whether in their actions or words. Arroyo's method was different, she have many accomplices in elections that is why she won. She also cheated even though she is in the position which everyone know as the "Hello Garci Tape". I can say that they are Predator Politicians because they gain benefit and the citizens suffer.
-Tan, Mark Jasper L. 3LM3
Clientelism is where the money is at, the rich middle class run it, and so by being rich, may be a form of being educated, simply because they have the means to be educated compared to populists who'd rather go with the flow of the voice of the people. Now the question is, is the voice of many even correct? To even count the numerous is impossible so as to hear them speak because of the democracy that we have. Populists cling to the people, ergo if one clings to one group, he or she must be able to abide by the rules of the group in order to be accepted by it, like cliques in high school and college students, or even in the office, people get left out because of their ideas and capabilities and because they cannot get along with the people. New ways have come, which is to have funds to run the business itself, the job itself. There is now an idea, even if people have the votes in truth, it is not truth in itself unless it is written down by them, meaning, they have the answers, the population yet the clients have the power to run the things behind the scenes and by that, the two opposes each other. Reformism is good, truly because it solves underdevelopment and corruption, and most importantly "not giving to the masses". Let the people who know how to run things, do the job, ergo it is like saying drinking the bitter syrup, senses tell us that it is bitter yet the doctor who is the conscience dictates that it is for the better. The government does the same things although harsh, they still make the situations right and just and if people had that power too much, anarchy would start. Nevertheless, if there is no anti-thesis to this, surely we will go back to populism; being known by many and appreciated by all, being one with the crowd is man's nature, because being loved is appreciated by the appetite of the human person where acceptance is a privilege to the majority. No doubt people really use popularity to access the unreachable like a paparazzi to a person's privacy, because in popularity there is power and where there is power, there is obedience and no misunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteRegarding that which is the Predator Politics, these two people GMA and Marcos are those people who are literally predators in a sense that predators dominate the field. Marcos dominates by his Martial rule and to set example, his powers of tyranny came to place which is unfair generally if examined where he has two powers legislative and executive powers. Gloria on the other hand is corrupt our country then had problems specifically in the budget area, but then how come she had a meal or rather a meal worth millions in the US whereas other people here in the country are starving? Predatory Politics slaughter the people because predators prey on the victims for power. Predators naturally show fear and power to gain control, that’s why even a herd of zebras or buffalos as big as they are, are afraid of a single unit that of a cheetah or a lioness hunting. It is all about the power. When people do something wrong against the state, it is not always crime, but it will always be political, where once one person is hurt in the society, everyone is hurt because it goes against public order and public policy and people's right to live. Imagine people under Marcos where he disregarded the Bill of rights which is unconstitutional, and where Gloria cheated her way to elections and ergo destroys the public's trust, I believe it is hard to trust people nowadays.
Neill Ortiz, 3LM3
This dialectic cycle would help us understand the different styles of each president cited in the blog during elections. This, in a way, would guide us in analyzing the effects of these cycles to our country. There are so many styles that our presidents in the past had used in order to improve the philippine situation but still our country is considered to be endemically weak. I would say that these cycles are equal because the bottomline is on how will the president would lead the country especially to protect the country into a failed
ReplyDeletePredatory politics is indeed evident during the marcos regime and gma's presidency. During marcos occupation, the president has lost its military power as well as its trust from the people hence the people had no power. During gma on the other hand, is full of corruption. In both time, the philippines had suffered with so much violence among its people.
Gutang, Alvin J, 3lm3
*into a failed state.
Delete*..its people. As a conclusion, corruption and violene are the indicators of a predatory politics.
In my opinion, our President today did not only use reformism in his candidacy but also populism. He used the appeal of the former President Corazon Aquino, his mother, to help him rise and be known to the public. He states that, like his mother he would try to reform this country. His family being well known in different aspects helped him gain popularity to the masses; his sister is a famous actress, his mother and father are the epitome of democracy. This gave him the leverage to other candidates, he also appealed to the poverty stricken masses because also because of the previous statement.
ReplyDeleteIn the Philippines it is subtly evident that our way of voting has a vicious cycle, in which, as said earlier, the cycle of populism, clientelism to reformism. The politicians appeal to the masses, which are mostly the poor, or in other cases the candidates are well known for their previous works even though they are not, in any way, linked to politics or how to run the country. However, because they are popular or well known the masses vote them, most likely because that particular candidate is their idol. In the years that they serve, the people will not be satisfied and tend to bash them because the candidate that they choose is not competent enough to do what they are supposed to do. Next is the clientelism, its targets, as said above, are the rich middle class. Candidates tend to win because of under-the-table activities; they also take advantage of the previous terms to gain leverage. GMA has one of the most infamous activities, perhaps after Marcos, the “hello Garci” scandal was the most prominent one, in which apparently she won because of electoral fraud. Corruption is the centerpiece of this part of the cycle. Seeking for new hope the people now tends to vote reformist, they believe that by voting a particular reformist candidate would give hope of better economy and lifestyle. They attempt to reconstruct the country from the previous damages that it had taken from the previous term. If ever that the country is reconstructed to a fully operating country, the people will lax and again tend to restart the cycle.
In our country there are two infamous regimes that made controversial nationwide and perhaps to other countries. Their regimes can be called as “Predatory Politics”, like in the wilderness, the survival of the fittest. Actually in this predatory politics, those who are close to the presidents gets the glory and wealth and those who are, let’s say, the poor do not gain much benefit from that particular regime. Those who contradict the president gets either killed or bashed, one example perhaps was in the Marcos regime, all who oppose him gats killed or goes to jail, be it media or high ranking officials, nobody escaped his dictatorship. Like predators in the wild, their way of handling the nation’s affair is the same, they get whatever they can from it, like money, and give away the remains to the vultures or scavengers, which are the rest of the population and mostly the poor. They manipulate whatever that they can lay their hands on for their benefit and leave the rest of it to us, the common people.
-Marione Joaquin 3LM3
The dialectic cycle for me, is a mere guide of how an aspiring president or such would present his agendas. Seeing that the Populism and Clientelism approach were unable to resolve the social issues or policy problems of the Philippines,the Reformist approach would suit best to respond to the concerns of both the citizens and the "rich middle class", since these two classes are always clashing in regards to their needs and wants. No specific cycle can be formulated in the field of electoral process, since changes are always brought upon the different situations the society faces and the government must always heed to such needs at the same time avoiding such conflicts between the two groups to arise. Reformist approach is the most applicable to the Philippine society as of now and it also concerns both the Populism and Clientelism approach.
ReplyDeletePredatory Government is very evident in the regimes of both Former President Marcos and Former President Arroyo. These two really evoked obedience during their regimes and they handled anyone that opposes them well. Corruption of monetary funds, abuse of power and the manipulation of the election and the masses are the common denominators for the two said regimes. They both have the knowledge and skills to turn the situations for their benefit and by these, they managed to stay at their presidency for a long time.
-Ma. Christine Joyce A. Jacinto, 3LM3
It is quite evident that the reigning President Benigno Aquino III did use Reformism as his focus. His campaign was all about how he would change the administration and help the country recover from the discrepancies that the former administration has brought forth. He had this very "good" image because of his advocacy of not being corrupt and that he will restore every Filipino’s trust in the government.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both Marcos and Arroyo are predatory politicians because the administration during their time was resistant to any change. Corruption during their regime was alarming up to such point that the Filipinos have been cynical about the political system of the government. Marcos was considered a predatory politician because of his overruling during his term. Constitutional convention took place and it changed the form of government, making it parliamentary for him to exercise his power for a longer time. On the other hand, Arroyo’s administration is also predatory and one concrete example is that she was known to hold back the pork barrels of the congressional representatives who do not support her. These are just an overview on how much they benefit from exercising such power vested upon them. I believe what Dr. Larry Diamond stated; that “Corruption is the core phenomenon of the predatory state.”
- Torres, Jann Patricia M.
3LM3
For me, Sen. Manny Villar is an example of populism during his candidacy for President of the Philippines because of his personal background that he came from a poor family which appeals the masses. He also hired many celebrity endorsements that is popular to the masses like the comedian Dolphy, TV host Willie Revillame, and boxing champ Manny Pacquiao that recommends him as a president, not to mention he had a very popular jingle “the Manny Villar song”.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Marcos and Arroyo regimes are a predatory politics because both demonstrate the abusive use of power as a commander in chief. Marcos became a tyrant ruler. It is said that he had executive and legislative power and the judiciary were under him and a lot of public rights had been violated that lead suffering to many people. Second is Arroyo she appoints people to governmental or political positions an example of this, CJ Corona to have him as her ally and cheated in the election confirmed in the hello garci tape and she is also said to be a corrupt president during her term.
-Roselle Elizabeth B. Gozum, 3LM3
It cannot be blamed on the Philippines, on how rampant administrations are with the use of Populism, for reason on how important a Filipino person is in socializing and their ideas of reform. For example, si Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Because of her chosen path in following Fifth President Diosdado Macapagal, Known as the “Poor Boy From Lubao” known as her Father. A person who has known and experienced the hardships of common men, This background for former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was as important as “Vote for Me I will be good to the masses” – as my Father was. A controversial leader, that was placed as acting president right after a peaceful revolution, EDSA II, and after the embezzlement of about five (5) million pesos by Jose Estrada. An Economist Reform isn’t so bad, considering what has happened as “A nation in Distress” in a way moving towards Reformist idea, which also evident in our society, is mainly used as a way to persuade people her projects such as stated in her Inaugural Speech she will produce in her term “10 million jobs”. Clientelism, is based on where you want to be grouped at and not just the status your peers are in, By siding with the anti-reformists or in GMA’s case anti-estrada administration is a plus side but can also pose as a problem, if you don’t stay in that good side.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Administration of Marcos and GMA, a type of predatory politics was administered. By way of Marcos exacting fear and his power to excite or expel that fear. He has driven the press to shambles, and by government decree even our rights are suspended. During GMA’s presidency, ill-gotten wealth scandals and her notorious tampering with votes all these done just to lengthen their terms as presidents. Using the laws for their own benefit, truly they are a predator towards the Filipino community.
-Reiner Bernal
3LM3
Former president Jose P. Laurel used clientelism electoral style. His ascension to presidency was aided by Japanese influence. Clientelism has the patron and clients asymmetric effect; having President J.P Laurel (the patron) sit in the presidency through the Japanese (the clients), the Japanese have to gain advantage from J.P Laurel in return for supporting him. Aside from more advantages of Japanese to Philippine goods, they were also able to mandate Filipinos to set war against United States which was vainly resisted by the president.
ReplyDeleteThe signs of which Former president Gloria Arroyo is a predator official was when she had planned to create a constitutional change that will enable her to extend her term. Apparently, she did not succeed in doing so, but she will not be settled with that. She made sure that her successor is an ally who’ll willingly protect her or cover her offenses. But she did not succeeded as well. In Marcos regime, one founded predator institution is the pork barrel wherein the senators and congressmen are able to gain kickbacks which will be spent to their constituents in return for their political support.
-MarizLerona
I think because Philippines is a democratic country, Populism and Reformism are commonly used. Because these styles are meant for the sympathy of the mass.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the case of President Noynoy Aquino, it is evident that he is a reformist because of his propaganda "Tuwid na daan" and at the same time a popular person. It is already given because he is an "Aquino" plus the death of her mother gave him way to won the hearts of the Filipino in the past election.
But for some, Political Parties helps them to be popular. So it is very important to be part of a renowned Political Party like the LAKAS-CMD.
I would like to coin Predatory Politics as the "Beast of the Mass" just like former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Ferdinand Marcos. They have great minds yet they used it to abuse the people. Marcos is the predatory boss, he has the sole power to corrupt, and to do crimes because of Martial Law. Meanwhile,GMA's predatory regime is like the comeback of Marcos's. The falsification of Election returns in Muslim Mindanao which she was charged of electoral sabotage, the pork-barrel which gives senators and congressman 20% commission on government deals, which makes, somehow, corruption legal.
Politics is dirty because of predatory regime, and it will still continue if we're not going to choose the right person, if we will base it on popularity, on the educational background or if we sell our votes to these traditional politicians, we have to choose someone with political will and with that passion. Because public service is not for fame but for building up a better nation.
-Janina Rhearlou V. Calma
3LM3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUnder the rule of former President Marcos who proclaimed Martial Law in the country, the Philippines had been deprived of the democracy it used to enjoy during the previous years. The declaration led to the rule of the military and suspension of civil liberties of the people. Because of this, the late President Corazon Aquino used reformism with an advocacy to bring back the democracy in the country. This had a huge appeal and impact to the public who had been exhausted with 20 years of tyrannical rule of Marcos. The reformism employed by Aquino made her win the hearts of the Filipinos and led to the exile of Marcos with her replacing him as the President of the Philippines.
ReplyDeletePredatory politics was manifested during the presidency of both former Presidents Marcos and Arroyo. They committed acts with almost the same nature like corruption and electoral fraud. Their rule were characterized by massive corruption. From here, we can see that they prey on their own people to give way to their personal interests. They used their power not for the development of the country and its people rather, for the development of their self, their families and their allies.
As I have observed, Gibo Teodoro used "reformism" as his election style. He was attractive to the middle to elite class voters of the society. His campaign slogan "Galing at Talino" shows what his real drive is. His campaign style was aggressive and shows the will of competence and capability to run an effective and efficient public office. Undoubtedly, hypercritical voters (that are mostly present in the middle class and student body) indulged to his political disposition.
ReplyDeleteDirty politics as what they say and it is very awful to accept the harsh reality that sometimes you have to be dirty to achieve a high office. Populism for me is not good; because in Philippine setting most popular politicians are not experienced enough into the office that they are aiming for. On the other hand; Clientelism by its very nature is never good. It favors the monopoly of power and nurtures political tension and corruption. Reformism will be always the ideal style. Every politician should be a reformer; that is their purpose in the political arena. To develop something good that is present and alongside is to suppress corruption in any form. Predatory Politics; the word itself explains its purpose "predation". Sad to say there are numerous political activities in the GMA and Marcos regime that caused a lot of corruption. Siting some controversial activities; the snap election (Marco's Regime) and the Formation of the Rolex 12 - establishing a corrupt government institution to retain power (Marco's regime). The NBN-ZTE deal in the Arroyo administration and worth mentioning is the 2004 electoral fraud in the national election.
Let’s all be a vigilant citizen!
-Margarette Dacanay
3LM3
Dialectic analysis is a genius painting of what election really is in the Philippines. The abstract that once was in our minds as “flowery words and promises”of our Presidents from the past and contemporary has been materialized into ideas like populism, clientilism and reformism. Part of its beauty I think is that the dialectic analysis will serve as our very guide in future elections that we are to witness. With these ideas provided by Hegel we can already categorize who uses populism, clientilism, reformism and other similar “papogi/paganda” strategies of our politicians. Also we, on our own, can coin other similar terms based on empiricism. With this analysis we can then with our own rational minds assess how to use our right to suffrage wisely.
ReplyDeleteArroyo with the belief of impending insurgencies against her seat issued Presidential Proclamation 1017 that allows the government to enforce warrantless arrests and seize private institutions and companies. Although the proclamation was short-lived its constitutionality was rigorously questioned. This surely is predatory, a person who seeks to gain power or advancement within an organization in ways that are generally disapproved. Marcos on the other hand with Proclamation no. 1081 in 1972 has seized a large amount of freedom rights enjoyed by people. One of this is General Order No. 5 that disallow demonstrations pickueting and the like. But Marcos was indeed right when he said, “It is easier perhaps and more comfortable to look back to the solace of a familiar and mediocre past. But the times are too grave and the stakes too high for us to permit the customary concessions to traditional democratic processes” But then the standards of the world like freedom and rights are paramount to consider than an autocratic rule or predatory in that sense.
-Emuelson Erce, 3LM3
Since I am from Laguna, the best example that I can give as a Reformist type of politician is our beloved Governor ER Ejercito Estregan. For the past decades, the decline in tourism as well as economic activities in the province of Laguna have been very evident. Being one of the top producer of crops and other important agricultural products in the south, it is depressing that for the past decades different governors have been elected but has never addressed this issue. Then there came Mr. Estregan, who revived the tourism and economic status of Laguna. I'm a present recipient of his scholarship foundation for all college students of Laguna, that's why I always attend to hear his speeches, which evidently express his reformist style of leadership. He always makes it a point to state the reforms and changes that he wanted to pursue that no other governor has done in the past, and he succeeded! At the present, Laguna Lake is in the constant state of being revived. Tourism in Laguna has been redeemed. Investors all went back, thus commercializing various areas, giving way to a smooth economy.
ReplyDeleteAs for the concept of Predatory Politics, well to be honest we have to admit that both Presidents Marcos and GMA have done a tremendous job of keeping the economic status of the Philippines stable. It was during their times that our country is most accessible to foreign investors, thus making the Philippine Financial System improve at its all time high. It's evident in statistical proofs such as GDP per capita, inflation rates and other economic indicators. What distorted their leadership over the country is their hunger of power, unlimited use of power, which of course clearly violated the ideal definiton of politics: CONSTRAINED use of social power. It came to a point that they decided to take recourse to corruption and dirty political activities such as electoral fraud (Hello Garci Scandal for GMA) and the negative side of Martial Law (as for Marcos).
- MANABAT, Leandro Mari B, 3LM3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFormer president Marcos and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is evidently using clientelism in the election in the Philippines thus commonly those who uses these kinds of terms are evidently subject to predatory politics. Ideally, elections serve as a ‘major source of political recruitment, a means of making government, and of transferring government power, a guarantee of representation, and a major determinant of government policy’ (Heywood, 2000:200). These do not, however, prevent the distortion of the will of the electorate in a ‘flawed democracy’. Democracy in the Philippines has been described in terms of “clientelism”. Elected politicians have been drawn from the landowning, commercial and industrial oligarchy of the archipelago, representing its interests both directly and through delegation. Competition for political office has revolved around contestation for the spoils of state power between rival families and factions within this ruling class. Poverty and economic insecurity have combined with a highly decentralized political structure to render the majority of Filipinos susceptible to clientelist, coercive, and monetary inducements and pressures during elections. Meanwhile, the prominent role of money in Philippine elections – for buying votes, bribing officials, and otherwise oiling the machinery – has created a structural imperative of fund-raising that guarantees politicians’ continuing use of state powers and resources for personal and particularistic benefit and their abiding reliance on landowners, merchants, bankers, and industrialists. Small wonder that observers have been most impressed by the continuities in this seemingly seamless system of oligarchical democracy in the Philippines, as seen in the close attention paid to “political dynasties” that have dominated municipalities, congressional districts, and in some cases entire provinces across several generations and many decades.
ReplyDeleteA political party is “a group of people organized to gain formal representation or win government power; a party usually displays some measure of ideological cohesion”. - Andrew Heywood
Those politicians like former President Corazon Aquino and her son President Benigno Aquino III are focused in these styles of campaign but when seated at the position they are reverted to being a reformist in which they reformed some of the deficiency to past presidential regime. These types of political campaign and styles are somewhat weak in its structure. For example, Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada used this kind of political campaign but when seated Philippines only suffer more damages and the also in our current administration only people can feel reforms but no change in the livelihood of the people.
-- Gerard BAltazar, 3LM3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Noynoy” Aquino without difficulty won the presidential chase by aiming attention on his “reformist” attestations, a plan of action that his mom Corazon Aquino (her death guide him physically to send off his candidacy) had accepted opposite to Marcos in 1986. Reformism includes absolute media requests and the reserve “I will not steal from you.” Two other accompanying presidential competitors took more “populist” position, which also awaits more on the media than on clientelism but with the note “I will help you.” Appealingly, Aquino’s running partner was beaten in the vice-presidential race by a “populist” competitor, showing off this historical also stays powerful. Disregarding of either administration evolves essentially neater under Aquino, most Filipinos will long stay distressed. This may bring to arrangement of electing cycle in which bigger effectiveness and bigger balance exchange as the better affirmations in elections.
ReplyDeleteThe similarities among the Marcos absolute rule and the Arroyo administration do not end with them having the longest terms. They both grasped competence when the country, and the world, was below financial critical situation. While both Marcos in the 1970’s and Arroyo in 2001 affirmed to lead in a new administration that would seemingly enhance or help the people, the Marcos and Arroyo administrations pushed the country below into critical situation. All organizations of government have also been distorted by the exception in corruption and bribery, electoral fraud, attacks on civil liberties and political killings.
-Nikolai O. Pamatmat 3LM3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt’s funny how Corry Aquino passed away quite close to the 2010 presidential elections. In my opinion, of the 3 strategies reformism is the most convenient and effective. It is always there when people are not happy with the actions of the president. You can’t please everyone. Let us take the United States for example. If everything is dandy the Republican candidate will almost always win the elections. Only when there is instability or economic turmoil, will the Democrats take the presidency. People think GMA is a cheater, so they elect somebody who can’t possibly cheat or be a criminal, somebody who promises a new Philippines. 2nd most is Clientelism if used to the extreme is the most powerful and effective method. (Marcos as proof) but for the everyday politician this is done by bribing COMELEC. Or using your power to assassinate you opponent (Maguindanao massacre). But usually the politician would appeal to communities make promises to scratch their back if they scratch theirs. The most powerful of which is Inglesia ni Christo. Populism is the easiest method of all. The only thing you need is a well-known last name or a couple of blockbuster movies.
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell predatory politics is when the government manipulates the people into allowing them to stay or gain power. We have seen this over and over again. When the Nazis burned the German parliament, when Marcos’s men threw grenades at a crowd in plaza Miranda, when college students were gunned down in Tiananmen Square or when Pol Pot massacred 1/3 of the Vietnamese population. Their aim is to claim power at all cost, and if all cost fails start killing the people who pose a threat to you. Marcos used the cover of martial law as an excuse to “imprison” enemies of the “state” and confiscate monopolies for the good of the “Philippines”. Everybody was afraid to speak out during these times. As the government had a secret police force to silence any volatile individuals who dare speak out against the government. Most notoriously the NKVD of Russia and Gestapo of Germany
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDialectic cycle is the basic system if you are entering politics.Thus, many politicians gain wealth and maintain their positions. populism is the starting point because if you are not popular you will not be voted and in clientism it states that if you have money you have the edge to get the position that you want,it only proves that money is a way to solve problems. Reformism is an effective way to catch peoples attention because he or she is not popular nor rich and people will follow because of who you are and what you represent.
ReplyDeleteMarcos and GMA's regime is predatory politics. Marcos is known to be a despotic leader because of using his power to command all of the people in the Philippines. He also put up the martial law, taking the authority of other government officials. On the other hand, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, used her power to cover up her false promises, her scandals, electoral sabotage that made her win the election. These two really induced obedience during their regimes. They both have the knowledge and skills to manipulate the situations for their benefit, given the fact that these are the reasons why they handled their positions for long period of time.
-Uy, Justin Ryan
3LM3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis dialectic cycle would help us understand the different styles of each president cited in the blog during elections. This, in a way, would guide us in analyzing the effects of these cycles to our country. There are so many styles that our previous presidents in the past had used in order to improve the Philippine situation, but still our country is considered to be endemically weak. I would say that these cycles are equal because the bottomline is on how will the president would lead the country especially to protect the country into a failed state.
ReplyDeletePredatory politics is indeed evident during the Marcos regime and GMA's presidency. During Marcos' occupation, the President has lost its military power as well as its trust from the people and also the Filipino people had lost its power over the government. During GMA's period, on the other hand, is full of corruption as seen during her presidency. In both time, the Philippines had suffered with so much violence among its people. As a conclusion, corruption and violence are example of indicators of a predatory politics.
GUTANG, Alvin J D. , 3 LM 3
Manuel "Manny" Bamba Villar, Jr. used populism election style because his target population was always the masses especially that he came from a poor family in Tondo before. All his election commercial campaigns were always about him being a poor boy then and him helping the poor people. During the 2007 Senatorial elections, his popular campaign line was "Sipag at Tiyaga." Moreover, during 2010 Presidential election, he used poor children as instruments to tell his intentions for the Filipino poor people in his commercial campaign and as i quote, "Si Villar ang tunay na mahirap, si Villar ang tunay na may malasakit...Si Manny Villar ang magtatapos ng ating kahirapan."
ReplyDeletePredatory politics can be observed by both Marcos' and Arroyo's regimes mainly because both of them used their power in order to get the money of the Filipino people and to manipulate a big part of the state. Marcos declared Martial law one year before the end of his second term and because of that, he suspended then revamped the constitution, controlled the military, silenced the media and used violence and oppression against political opposition. He nationalized and monopolized increasing portions of industry and further increased spending on patronage. On the other hand, Arroyo manipulated the 2004 Presidential election and it was the hello garci controversy that is about the audio recordings of wiretapped conversations between Arroyo and a former Commission on Elections (COMELEC) commisioner. Her term ended leaving Philippines a lot of debts and problems.
-Racadio, Marie Bernadette M.
Delete3LM3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that Populism and Reformism is commonly used by the politicians, and as you can see now most politicians are actors and actresses. For example, FPJ, he used the populism in the country that is why he ran for presidency even though he is an elementary graduate and inexperienced in politics. Most Filipinos know that he is a very good actor because in his movies that he is a protagonist which ends up the conflict with the antagonist. In the real life situation, they think that what he did in the movies he will also do it right to the country that he will protect the nation.
ReplyDeleteMarcos is one of the predator politicians because he created an elaborate cult of personality. Because of this so called "People Power or the Imperial Manila” when that state-mandated adulation proved insufficient for him to maintain control, President Marcos declared martial law. The Military power is used to protect him from his enemies, the citizens. Marcos also dissolved the Philippine Congress and shut down media establishments critical of the Marcos government. Marcos also ordered the immediate arrest of his political opponents and critics. He also abolishes the Philippines' 1935 constitution and replaces it with a parliamentary-style government that is why he became a dictator. Meanwhile, Arroyo is also corrupt and her husband took advantage of their position by hand picking those close to them into powerful positions in the government, bribing officials, and ignoring the problems of the country in general. But in my opinion, Marcos also contributes many things in our country. Philippines had become the 2nd richest country and the most literate in Asia. Schools, Hospitals, bridges and etc are dedicated to make the Philippines to become popular and become superpower alongside USA and China. He only wanted the development of his nation. His fall from power started the "Times of Troubles" in the Philippines. Too much Freedom and Democracy had made Philippines poor and chaotic.
-John Leonardo F. Capistrano
3LM3
Populism is most commonly used by politicians here in the Philippines. Not only talking about the ones aiming for higher ranks, but also the ones aiming for the lowest rank. For example, here in our barangay, people who wants to just become kagawads promises the poor people anything just to get votes. Another example is Manny Villar and his commercials. Most politicians, give monetary and non-monetary gifts to the poor in order to win their hearts and to gain votes. These things happen especially when it is nearing the election.
ReplyDeleteMarcos' and Arroyo's regimes were both predatory politics basically because of their abuse of power. The Martial Law that was declared by Marcos, in which he has all the powers in the state, made him extend his rule beyond the limit of two terms. He suspended the freedom of the press, shut down businesses of people, and even tortured and arrested people. He also ordered a change in constitution. In Arroyo's regime, she manipulated the election to extend her term. Used the ZTE broadband project to steal money from the people. Although both were into predatory politics, both of them still did something good for the Philippines.
-Ang, Earvin R.
3LM3
In my own view, I believe that the incumbent president used the three election styles which are reformism, populism and clientelism. First, reformism because he took advantage of our countrymen’s hunger for change thus, during elections, he gave out promises that he will initiate significant change in the system of our government with a tag line ‘ang matuwid na daan.’ Second, populism, because he and his party took advantage of the death of the late Corazon Aquino and expected a large number of sympathy votes coming from the public. He also took advantage of Gloria Macapaga-Arroyo’s ‘deteriorating image to the public when he said that he would pursue criminal charges against her for the anomalies during her administration. Last is the clientelism, he, being a member of an elite family (Cojuancos of Tarlac) had ties with media corporations such as the Lopez’s ABS-CBN, giving him an easy access to television advertisement. Also, if Marcos had cronies and Arroyo had the Taipans, PNoy has his own Yellow Army in which his K.K.K. (Kaibigan, Kaklase, Kabarilan) holds high appointive positions in the government. I personally don’t believe in the dialectic cycle because in every election, there’s always an opportunity for every reformist, populist or clientelist candidate to win; and the only people who can predict who’ll be our next leader would be the Filipino people only.
ReplyDeletePoliticians become predators only if they have established a significant amount of control over the 3 branches of the government. During Marcos’ time, he declared martial law and had legislative powers as well. Any person that went against the rules he promulgated was punished without due process. When, he called for a snap election, he was confident that he will win because he has control over the entire election process. He also used Martial Law to extend his stay in power. While in Arroyo’s administration, her political allies prevailed all over the House of Representatives making her impossible for impeachment. She also appointed majority of the magistrates of the Supreme Court and made them indebted and loyal to her. That move made her immune to future criminal liabilities that she may incur. Arroyo’s first attempt to stay in power was a success with the help of her allies in COMELEC, specifically Ex. Commissioner Garcillano her second was allegedly to resort in charter change (cha-cha) wherein her allies in Congress would install her as Prime Minister. In short, Arroyo’s manipulative powers are subtle and discreet as compared to Marcos’ blunt manipulation.
-Longboan, Justin Marc Francis A.
3LM3
The dialectic cycle (populism to clientelism to reformism then goes back to populism) of observing the flow of history in society may either be an advantage or disadvantage to the masses. Populism denote appeals to the people as exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals from the lower classes. For which, populism style used or exhibits action against a set of elites and others who are together pictured people of their rights, identity and voice. Clientelism on the other hand, get other’s support through exchange of goods and services thus, clients can offer politicians financial contributions and other non-monetary resources, not just votes. In this way, clientelism turns into corruption because in my views the exchange occurred to be illegal because exchange still qualifies as clientelism although the public frowns upon it. last is the reformism, as it talks about the idea that the reformist must be elected into the seat of authority because he/she is good, still it can change the society by means of one’s policy, movement or doctrine that could result into a good or bad way. Knowing these dialectic cycle, it’s advantages is that masses would really know how’s the president respond into the problems in the society, thus by means of this cycle, people would meet their satisfaction or nonetheless, its other way around which is its disadvantage.
ReplyDeletePredatory politics, I may say, is indeed evident through Marcos and GMA’s presidency. Former president, Ferdinand Marcos by means of corruption, economic plunder and most specially, the martial law, as it caused major natural disasters in our country, it abused human rights and torture was used, the democracy of people aren’t expressed because of this brutality. As in the case of GMA, corruption indeed ruled into her time. She cheated her way to the presidency. By these, we could say that they prey our country and on their own people because they inclined and intended to injure others for their personal gain and profit and not for the betterment of our country, society and their people.
- Bassig, Ma. Karina A.
3LM3
The incumbent's election style of 'Reformism' proved effective in the 2010 elections because the Filipino masses had already been clamoring for change. This became a leverage for Aquino and he invested on this leverage. Aside from this first advantage, his mother (fmr. Pres. Cory Aquino), had just passed a few months prior to the coming elections and fortunately and unfortunately for Aquino this became a second advantage he could invest upon. The people had sympathized with him. Both of his parents were regarded as heroes in Philippine politics and because of this a kind of trust was put into Aquino's hands. As opposed to this, Aquino's opponent, Manuel Villar used Populism in his campaigns emphasizing his young life of poverty. This style also proved effective and this made Villar a very close competitor putting him head-to-head with Aquino in the polls.
ReplyDeletePredatory Politics is the state-sanctioned killing in order to maintain peace and order throughout the state and somehow become a Utopian state. This practice is very wrong in every sense. People are killed because of political dissent and this produces a crippling effect on the people's vested rights. We cannot deny that there always be people who will dissenter with what the government says and provides. Public discourse is one indicator of a healthy state and if the government suppresses this vested right then a dysfunctional government is at hand. In the GMA and Marcos regimes respectively, they had media-men killed and many other people who opposed their administrations. This in turn weakened their grip on once of the most important elements of the state- the people. In Marcos's time, he made the Philippine government a Parliament BUT essentially Presidential this put Marcos's hunger for power in the guise of a new executive. But this new government still gave Marcos a higher power in the hierarchy because of it being essentially presidential. His cronies were also well-benefited in his incumbency and had them amass wealth. This showed how he manipulated almost everything in the country.
-Obejas, Kiefer Thomas M. 3LM3
Populism (the proliferation of showbusiness personae-comedians, news, broadcasters, sports stars, and the entire spectrum of movie stars and starlets) points to a wider political phenomenon and emerged as the most effective electoral discourse in the early post-Marcos period, with Joseph Ejercito Estrada coming to dominate Philippine politics by the late 1990s. His friend and fellow actor-politician Fernando Poe Jr. then launched a major campaign for the presidency in 2004 after Estrada had been deposed by an elitist uprising. But despite the metamorphosis of populism and the revival of reformism, deep-seated structural problems in the Philippines remain. Without major economic redistribution, the plight of the poor is likely to undermine the success of either a new "reformist", “clientelist” or "populist" president. (Thomson, 2012)
ReplyDeleteI can say that Marcos and Arroyo had a predatory government during their regime. Marcos brought into realization the potential of the strong presidency before and having an authoritarian centralization of political patronage- in which he twisted the government by the centralization of power in the executive, heightened repression, rigged elections, a much weakened rule of law, numerous political appointees and increased influence of the military. Former President Arroyo has been considered the most corrupt President-as most believed by the Filipinos. And during her time political violence, coercion and repression have reached to the highest levels. Thus, ‘Predatory states, cannot sustain democracy, for sustainable democracy requires constitutionalism, compromise, and a respect for law.’(Diamond, 2008)
-Palanca, Irvin L.
3LM3
Jejomar "Jojo" Cabauatan Binay used reformism as his election style. As we all know, Binay served as a mayor of the richest city in the country for 6 terms. His slogan "Gaganda ang Buhay Dahil kay Binay" aims to make the whole Philippines progressive as he did in Makati. He has confidence in running as the Vice President because he knows that he is good enough to handle the problems of the country and find solutions to it. "I sincerely believe, based on my experience, that if the barangays are progressive, then the whole country will be progressive"-Binay
ReplyDeleteIt is very evident that predatory politics is present during the presidency of Arroyo and Marcos. Both of them were very famous at the time they got elected. Marcos had a firm hold on the military and he wasn't afraid to use it. He is boldly called a Dictator after when he declared the Martial Law. The freedom of the press was also reduced during his time. Arroyo was proven corrupt when the issue about the pork barrel funds of the congressional representatives came out. Even though both of them improved the country’s infrastructure, the projects gave them a chance to corrupt money form the government. It is by overpricing the materials used in building the infrastructures. They both manipulate the people for their benefit and this resulted to very high cases of corruption.
- Guerrero, Vina L.
3LM3
This Cycle I agree with somehow, for the people were never satisfied. But I don’t think that politicians only use one style to be able to acquire a position in the government. If there was another style that is not indicated in the blog that the politicians use, it would be the combination of all three. I believe that politicians exhaust all options necessary to win in an election. Yes, they may focus in one but still they make use of the two other styles. In the end, the only ones who will determine the winner would be the people.
ReplyDeletePredatory Politics in Marcos’ regime was very evident. The declaration of Martial law did not only extend his term but also suspended the rights of the people. He made use of this to make people do things the way he wants them to. This declaration may not be illegal but abusing it is. In GMA’s regime she used people. She appointed people in positions that are crucial in maintaining order in a state and made sure that she would not end up behind bars after she steps down. Quite clever, but never effective with Benigno Aquino III as our president.
-Francisco, Erlaine Faye
3LM3
Populism is an election style that is centered on the masses. In the Philippines where poverty is prevalent using a populism style is a successful way of winning the hearts and minds of the people, especially those people who think that you can understand and relate to them. I would say that Manny Villar, who run for the 2010 Presidential Election with the slogan “Sipag at Tiyaga, depicted the style populism in his campaign. The reason why it is populism is because his campaign using television advertisement and other public relation materials focuses on the people who cannot afford to provide the basic need for their family. One example of his campaign is his television advertisement where children singing about a man who is capable of improving the state of our nation through hard work and perseverance, just like he did with the lines “Nakaligo ka nab a sa dagat ng basura”. It is also a way of telling us that he understand the true meaning of being poor, coming from a poor family who lived in the slums of Tondo to climbing up to success.
ReplyDeletePredatory politics is evident in former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s time and former President Ferdinand Marcos because they both have misused the power given to them by the people for other purposes like making law that can affect them in a good way for example former President Marcos declared martial law which enables him to extend his term beyond the constitutional term of two-term limit. From the part of former President Arroyo, she used her power to control the people around her in order for her to stay in her position like appointing Renato Corona as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; I think that she was putting him there to protect her when she is no longer president.
-Tacderas, Gaea Marie
3LM3
In the Philippine context, it is apparent that majority of the country's population are those of under marginalized sector making them the main target of those who are aiming for a seat of power in the government because their understanding in the world of politics is lacking. Through this, they use this as an advantage and this is where populism takes place. Actors which are well known by majority are those who use this tactic because they are known already plus armed with few flowering lines; they are secured with the vote of the mass. A good example here is during the 2010 Election where Ex Pres. Joseph Estrada ran for the position of presidency, even though he has past issues before and known as one of the corrupt presidents of the country, still he was second in election because that’s how the mass work, they forget. What’s important is what is happening now, with the track record of Mr. Estrada, they never look back at it because that was before and now that was over and candidates know that and with this scenario, we can see how populism is well-used and sometimes it works. Why? Simple, the candidates feed the mass with what they want them to hear and made them feel that the mass needed him (candidate).
ReplyDeleteIn a state there are always the big fish and the small ones, during the term of former Presidents Marcos and Arroyo, they are the big fish. They are the one who preys in small institutions and even the big ones for their benefit. It is apparent that during their terms predatory politics is well observed by these two. I think, them using Clientelism as their tactic has something to do with predatory politics they practiced, in a way that both of them gained their positions with the help of their allies who are in the high-middle-class, and through their win they are now indebted to those who helped them. As to this, in their incumbency they are now obliged to do something for them in return, as for the Mrs. Arroyo’s case, she filled up her cabinet members with her allies or should I say cronies, chose these people not because of their ability but because of debt and what they can do for her. And for Marcos, he surrounded himself with the people he needs. Furthermore, as what Diamond stated, “Corruption is the core phenomenon of predatory state” in which both are corrupted where in Marcos’ term he then took over the country for almost 21 years and holding the three branches of the state where almost absolute power was all for himself while in Arroyo’s, she impliedly controlled the three branches by at least placing her cronies in each branches. Morally and evidently what they did was too much but one thing that they contributed to our country, and that is learning, that through this hopefully, we learned something from it and do something about it.
GAMBOA, Leolita Isabell M. || 3LM3
Populism in the Philippines is evidently used in politics because the one who runs for the President used the things that they have contributed for the Filipino people and this triggers the trust and support of the people. Ramon del Fierro Magsaysay, third and most popular of all Presidents of the Republic, but we all know that nothing extraordinary happened about him when he was a child and a student. Former President Ramon Magsaysay was defined a national hero, almost a legendary figure to people and this inspired him to run for president. Populism arose to him because of the things he has done for the Philippines, he even risked his life in going inside of the enemy’s base and he was the one whose responsible in the defeat of the Huks in his time where he was serving the National Defense. He knew that the things he has done to the Filipino people worth a shot in Presidency.
ReplyDeleteOur former President Marcos and Arroyo’s regime is indeed a predatory politics because we knew that they have done something to the Philippines that the Filipino people didn’t agree with the decisions that they done. In Marcos’ time, he declared Martial Law wherein the Filipino people and the media were held like a puppet because of their movements were monitored and limited. In Arroyo’s time, she was a corrupt president wherein she cheated the elections between her and FPJ and to win the elections. The things that they have done to the Philippines just reflect to the Philippines today. As we can see, we are already in the failed state level and we must highly monitor this kind of level. The Philippines is located in a fragile position wherein we can’t do anything wrong because one wrong decision, the Philippines would fall down to the ground.
-VILLA, Hermie Jr. A.
3LM3
Despite of his great achievements being appointed by GMA as the DepEd secretary in 2001, Raul Roco, failed to win in the 2004 elections and ranked fourth for the presidency. He may have done several reforms most especially in our education system, but at the end of the day, clientelism (GMA) won then populism (FPJ) came second. Our politics may be defined by the dialectic cycle but in my opinion, politicians used such styles to provide what the people needs for that certain period (election). And for me, this cycle is present in our politics because we, Filipinos, forget things easily. After one regime, another style will be used to cover what have been done by the past term.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot deny about the horrific events during Marcos' era. Due to his eagerness for power, he declared martial law that instead of implementing peace and order, created a bigger whole to the problem. Abolishing due process, rampant corruption, no freedom of speech, media networks were set aside, and an over-all mismanagement of his regime by his cronies. Another president that can be labeled as predator would be Gloria Arroyo that sabotage 2004 presidential elections, known by many as the "Hello Garci" scandal. Several midnight appointees that she used as her instrument to have a graceful exit after her reign. One of which is the former Chief Justice Corona. Many have submitted impeachment complaints against her but then again we are very forgetful on the things happened in the past. Gloria Arroyo is still enjoying her freedom and her position as the Pampanga Represenative.
-Alinea, Alyssa Truty C.
3LM3
In the Philippines, Populism and Reformism is the widely and mostly used election style. One example of a politician who uses Populism is Senator Manny Villar, who uses his strongest political machinery which is his wealth, and his name is usually said in "Wil Time, Big Time" and other shows of William Revillame, that also helps in his popularity, also his famous Chant in the last 2010 election, and lastly his commercials with his housing business which is "Camella". He also uses an "applied populism" that involves giving gifts to the people in need. And One example of a politician who uses Reformism is the Late Former President Cory Aquino. She fought for the change in our country; she wants the Filipino to be free in the dictatorship of our Late Former President Ferdinand Marcos. Lastly, Clientelism, I believe, that many of our politicans use either Populism and Reformism combined with Clientelism. In every election, Vote buying, fund media campaigns, and fund goons are always present.
ReplyDeleteEvidently, Predatory politics is observed in the Marcos' and Arroyo's regime. They both manipulated the country with their strongest power or force which is the Military Power. They Both used Cryonism in appointing their cabinet members. But In the Marcos regime, he manipulated the laws, institutions and people by declaring Martial Law that made him more powerful as a president. They both used our money to maintain and to have a better economy, or rather a Good country. But then, they also used our money for their own benefit.
-Aguilar, Darylle Hannah D.
3LM3
The world has now fallen into a democratic recession and that predatory states are on the rise. Philippines is now one of the states with predatory politicians specifically in Marcos' and Arroyo's regime. Predatory politicians are corrupt, thieves and are one of the best liars in the world. The idea of being good as a president to the state is an idea that I can't concur with because what a failed state needs is a "competent" executive.
ReplyDeleteArroyo's Proclamation 1017 allowed the government to enforce warrantless arrests and seize private institutions and companies. Marcos' Marshall law executed 20 years of tyranny that deprived the democracy and civil liberties of the people in the previous years. Cory Aquino in the 1987 Constitution had the legislative and executive power (LABAN) and saved the people of Philippines from the tyranny of the late former president Marcos. This was reformism. And her son, the current president, Benigno Aquino III used the reformism and populism also because he promised he will be good to the people and because of the death of his mother, he used this to his advantage to become the president. The reason why most politicians are corrupt, it is because they have authority, now, the more power they have, the more corrupt they will get.
-Santos, Paulo G.
3LM3
*sorry for the 5hr delayed post sir, because I had food poisoning.