The cracks beneath the veneer:
Unraveling the illusion of Marcos-Duterte unity after its "divorce"
The rift between the Marcos and Duterte factions, once united under the banner of "unity" during the 2022 election campaign, is now becoming increasingly visible. This "unity," which aimed to project a strong front to the public, now appears more like a political maneuver to secure votes from a diverse electorate desperate for stability and change.
In recent months, the Marcos and Duterte political families in the Philippines have engaged in increasingly public and contentious disputes, putting the so-called “unity government” under President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. at risk.
These mounting tensions have exposed significant fractures in the unity once promoted during the recent elections, revealing the competing interests of former allies now turned rivals. And latest events have exposed the fractures that were present but previously downplayed.
As the two dynasties jockey for influence, a growing number of Filipinos are expressing frustration over the focus of these political clans. Many feel that instead of addressing pressing issues affecting ordinary citizens, the primary concern has shifted to consolidating power and advancing personal agendas.
One major point of contention is the issue surrounding Vice President Sara Duterte's confidential funds. Calls for transparency over the allocation and usage of these funds have raised suspicions among various sectors, leading to tensions between her camp and other members of the government, particularly those supporting the Marcos administration. Duterte justified the need for "confidential funds" in both the Office of the Vice President and her former position as Education Secretary on the basis of "national security", matters in which also justified controversial moves from the past administration such as "red tagging" and harassment towards the opposition. But obviously, the allocation of these confidential funds during a time of economic hardship has only intensified scrutiny, with critics questioning if these resources are being properly used or exploited for political gain.
Further straining relations is the ongoing investigation into the past Duterte administration's controversial "war on drugs," which faces international and domestic criticism for alleged human rights violations. The Marcos administration, facing pressure from both domestic advocacy groups and international bodies, must carefully navigate this sensitive issue, balancing the need for accountability while trying to avoid alienating supporters of the Duterte faction. In an instance, the International Criminal Court has pressured Marcos to put his predecessor Duterte and his allies into justice, making the investigation into the drug war- that same war that justified extrajudicial killings and reckless use of the "law" to justify impunity could undermine the credibility of the alliance between the two factions, particularly as cracks widen over disagreements on how to approach justice and governance.
Most recently, the arrest of Apollo Quiboloy, a close spiritual adviser to former President Rodrigo Duterte, has added fuel to the fire. Quiboloy's arrest on charges of human trafficking, cash smuggling, money laundering, and other crimes places further strain on the Duterte faction, as his close ties to the former president have raised questions about the political implications of his legal troubles. His arrest may have ripple effects that could possibly lead to deeper divisions, as the Duterte faction rallies around him while others seek to distance themselves from the controversy.
With these examples stated shows that from these issues have accelerated the growing divide between the Marcos and Duterte factions, challenging the "unity" narrative that was central to their electoral success. The cracks that were once papered over for the sake of political expediency are now too large to ignore, as even members of the ruling elite begin to take sides. This divide threatens to destabilize the current administration, as conflicting loyalties emerge within the ranks, making it harder for the government to present a "unity" in the eyes of the folk.
Ultimately, this growing rift suggests that the "unity" promised during the election campaign was more about securing power than genuine ideological or policy alignment. The factional tensions expose a political alliance based on convenience, not on shared governance principles. As these cracks deepen, they may have far-reaching implications for the future of Philippine politics.
Still, supporters yearn for "strongman politics"
even at the expense of democratic processes
Looking back in the recent past would say that the reason for them to support the current administration is their desire to continue strongman politics. No matter how vulgar it would be still that "strongman" politics brought a semblance of stability for them- even tho it was overshadowed by controversies that haunts until today.
And to be honest, having heard about Duterte's promises sounds promising at first, ranging from the need to industrialisation, land for the landless, inclusive governance, these would say find it appealing to the people to unite under his leadership. However, as weeks, even months, passed, these promises turns out to be hollow rhetorics as he himself chose to follow the playbook of the status quo, what more to insist himself as a vulgar kind of orderist- with supporters justifying his vulgarity as part of his personality, and in it also meant "anti-establishment" if not "revolutionary."
And by swearing to upheld the status quo means reducing popular appeals and aspirations into just pallative solutions and "compromises" favouring the order at the expense of the people. In an instance, he even kicked the left-wingers who provided the regime a "human face", shattering any pretention of inclusive governance for an outright yet vulgar desire for an authoritarian orderism.
But despite the prospect of peace receded in favour of fear, people knew if not realise that the desire for change is not through, with, nor in him. The past administration promised everything but again these end compromised by interest seekers or reduced as shallow rhetoric
meant to snare people particularly that of the working class. But did it stop people from complaining over human rights, taxes, costs of commodities and utilities, the agrarian question, and national sovereignty. What they've seen under that past regime was a mockery of change- that everyone's been fooled.
As an observer, Duterte's vulgar desire for orderism is a mockery of people's desire for a comfortable and peaceful life. Given that the regime prioritises much of order and security over other democratic values, achieving these goals through fear, violence, and authoritarian measures can lead to a society where peace is superficial, maintained only by force, rather than by genuine harmony or justice. Yes, it could be seen as a betrayal of the people’s trust, where the promise of peace and comfort is delivered at the cost of dignity, freedom, and true justice. Critics argue that this creates a false sense of security, where the underlying issues of poverty, inequality, and social injustice remain unaddressed, and the rights of ordinary citizens are increasingly at risk.
No matter how supporters might argue that his strong-arm tactics were necessary to tackle the severe crime and drug issues in the Philippines, which they believe traditional, more lenient approaches had failed to address. To them, his methods are a tough but necessary means to achieve the order and peace that many Filipinos desire. But nevertheless, neither "reform" or "program" that's been bragged cannot sway the majority from the controversies particularly that of extrajudicial killings, justified harassments, and subservience to local and foreign interests.
That until today most Filipinos cannot simply "move on" from it. In this current Marcos jr. administration would say that they're gradually if not frustratingly trying to withdraw from its predecessor by removing remnants of "Dutertism" even at the expense of the supporters who voted both for Marcos and Duterte. And recent news would say that the "divorce" of a once bragged "UniTeam" has left exposed the obvious different tendencies between the two who preached recovery and greatness, of maintaining orderism "as it is".
However, the staunch supporters of the former president continue to cling to his brash and highly controlled style of "leadership," which they present as "inclusive" and "populist." When asked if they are willing to move on from their idol’s crude approach to leadership, the answer is a resounding no. They remain unabashedly proud of both his unrefined style and his rural origins, which they see as reflections of their own background. They remain indifferent to the damage caused, echoing Duterte’s sentiment of, "I do not care if I burn in hell as long as the people I serve live in paradise."
Among these supporters, some, despite their conscience, point to the president’s strongman tactics and the perceived improvements in crime reduction, social welfare, and infrastructure development as positive outcomes influenced by his populist and even "nationalist" rhetoric.
However, criticisms of his administration—including human rights violations related to the war on drugs and concerns about the erosion of democratic institutions—have tainted the initial positive reception. This has led to a diminishing of support among those who seek genuine and inclusive social change.
Perhaps, in seeing this kind of divorce between Marcos and Duterte shows people still clamouring for change- something that's beyond the rhetorics of both sides of the coin.
A "Thermidor" within that "Thermidorian reaction"
The current Marcos regime may've suggest a desire to consolidate power in a manner that also mirrors a "Thermidor" within that "Thermidorian reaction", maintaining a veneer of democracy while consolidating centralized control.
To grasp the current political climate, one must consider the concept of a “Thermidorian reaction.” This term historically describes a period of consolidation and reaction following a "radical phase". In the Philippine context, the Marcos administration's efforts to consolidate power, while simultaneously distancing itself from Duterte's more extreme policies and still attempting to dismantle lingering elements of the "decades-past EDSA" era, can be seen as a “Thermidor within the Thermidorian reaction.”
This process of consolidation involves the Marcos administration projecting an image of democratic propriety while centralizing control and moderating the more extreme aspects of the previous regime's policies. its supporters also trying to negate further the "mess" left after 1986 Aquino government and its succeeding administrations, what more calling back Duterte as a "yellow" for being a once-political appointee of the Aquinos. Essentially, it reflects a broader trend of political realignment and reactionary consolidation with entrenched interests in both political and economic spheres rallying support one stand bearer after the other. The Marcos administration's approach aims to stabilize the political landscape by managing the complex and contentious legacy of the Duterte era, while also navigating the challenges of maintaining both control and a façade of democratic governance.
The question is, will the people just simply "laid back" thinking nothing's happened? Not surprising if apathy became the "norm" after recent events preferred continuity over change. But, such realities also would say that the desire for real transformation remains as strong as ever. Despite the efforts of the Marcos administration to distance itself from Duterte’s controversial methods, the fundamental issues of poverty, inequality, and social injustice remain unresolved. On the first place, the "New Philippines" bragged about by Marcos is a rehash of policies coming from past administrations, and still benefiting entrenched interests at the expense of the working masses.
The dissatisfaction with both the Duterte and Marcos administrations reflects a broader yearning for meaningful reform and transformation. The current political landscape, marked by factionalism and the erosion of democratic norms, underscores the continued demand for substantive change. The persistent desire for genuine reform amidst ongoing political turmoil highlights the need for a more inclusive and equitable approach to governance, one that goes beyond rhetoric and addresses the core issues affecting the lives of ordinary citizens.