Blind Loyalty, Fractured Governance:
The Failure of ‘Whateverism’ in the Marcos Era
Recent analyses and news reports have painted a vivid picture of the unraveling of the so-called “Uniteam,” the political alliance between Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte, which defined the early years of the Marcos administration in the Philippines. This coalition, initially heralded as a formidable partnership built on the momentum of the 2022 elections, was underpinned by a peculiar phenomenon described by political observers as “whateverist” loyalty. This mindset, characterized by an unwavering commitment to uphold and follow the policies and directives of former President Rodrigo Duterte—regardless of their merit, morality, or consequences—shaped the motivations of a significant portion of the Marcos–Duterte voter base. Supporters of the tandem, particularly those loyal to Duterte, embraced a resolute allegiance to his legacy, often dismissing or downplaying the controversies, abuses, and systemic failures that marked his administration. This “whateverist” impulse, cloaked in populist rhetoric and promises of continuity, ultimately proved to be a shallow and inadequate substitute for substantive governance, failing to address the public’s growing demands for justice, transparency, and accountability.
The “whateverist” loyalty was not merely a passive endorsement of Duterte’s policies but a deliberate choice by many supporters to prioritize political fidelity over critical scrutiny. Duterte’s presidency (2016–2022) was defined by polarizing policies, including a brutal war on drugs that led to thousands of extrajudicial killings, a foreign policy pivot toward China that raised concerns about national sovereignty, and the opaque handling of public funds, including the controversial use of confidential and intelligence funds. Despite these issues, Duterte’s populist charisma and his image as a strong, decisive leader cultivated a loyal base that viewed his approach as a necessary antidote to the perceived elitism and inefficiency of prior administrations. When Marcos Jr., running alongside Sara Duterte, campaigned on a platform of continuity, promising to build on Duterte’s legacy, this resonated deeply with voters who saw in the Uniteam a continuation of the “Dutertist” revolution. However, this loyalty was less about ideological alignment and more about a reflexive, almost dogmatic adherence to Duterte’s persona and directives, regardless of their practical or ethical implications.
This “whateverist” stance provided a form of political comfort—a kind of “copium,” as critics have termed it—for those unwilling or unable to grapple with the unresolved issues of the Duterte era. Human rights violations, including the deaths of thousands in the drug war, remained largely unaddressed, with the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) investigation into these killings facing resistance from Philippine authorities. Arbitrary detentions, red-tagging of activists, and attacks on press freedom persisted as lingering stains on the nation’s democratic fabric. Controversial foreign policy decisions, such as the pivot toward China at the expense of traditional alliances like the United States, raised questions about long-term national interests. Additionally, allegations of corruption, including the misuse of public funds and the protection of politically connected figures, continued to erode public trust. Yet, the rhetoric of “resolute upholding” and “unswerving following” of Duterte’s policies was offered as a panacea, a way to maintain the illusion of stability and progress without confronting these uncomfortable truths.
The fragility of this approach became increasingly evident as the Marcos–Duterte alliance began to fracture in the early years of the administration, with public cracks emerging as early as 2024. What was once portrayed as a monolithic partnership, unified under the banner of Dutertism, revealed itself to be a coalition of convenience, built on fragile compromises rather than shared principles. High-profile cabinet disputes, often centered on policy disagreements or competing political agendas, exposed deep rifts within the administration. Legislative gridlock stalled key reforms, as allies of Marcos and Duterte clashed over priorities, further undermining the narrative of unity. Resignations of key officials, some citing irreconcilable differences with the administration’s direction, became public spectacles that highlighted the instability of the Uniteam. These events underscored a critical flaw in the “whateverist” approach: loyalty to a predecessor’s legacy, without a clear and principled vision for the future, could not sustain a functional governing coalition.
The failure of this approach was perhaps most starkly illustrated in the administration’s handling of major controversies, particularly those inherited from the Duterte era. The Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (POGOs), widely criticized for their links to organized crime, human trafficking, and money laundering, became a lightning rod for public discontent. Investigations into POGOs revealed systemic failures in regulation and enforcement, with allegations that powerful political figures had shielded these operations from scrutiny. Similarly, the use of confidential and intelligence funds—large, discretionary budgets with minimal oversight—came under intense scrutiny, as reports surfaced of mismanagement and potential abuse. These controversies, rather than being addressed with transparency and accountability, were often met with deflections or justifications rooted in the “whateverist” defense of Duterte’s policies. This uncritical adherence to the past did not deliver the promised order or efficiency but instead served to protect entrenched interests and perpetuate a culture of impunity.
Public sentiment, as reflected in polling data and civic activism, began to shift in response to these failures. By 2024, surveys indicated growing disillusionment with the Marcos administration’s inability to move beyond symbolic gestures of continuity. Ordinary Filipinos, particularly those outside the hardcore Dutertist base, expressed frustration with the lack of meaningful reforms. They demanded greater transparency in governance, stronger protections for human rights, and concrete action against corruption. Grassroots movements and civil society organizations became increasingly vocal, calling for accountability for past abuses and a clear break from the divisive tactics of the Duterte era. Yet, the “whateverist” posture of the administration and its supporters encouraged conformity over dialogue, stifling dissent and framing criticism as disloyalty to the Uniteam’s vision. This approach turned the rhetoric of unity into a tool for preserving political advantage rather than fostering genuine societal cohesion.
The broader implications of this dynamic were profound. The early years of the Marcos administration revealed a central tension in Philippine politics: continuity for its own sake, particularly when tied to a polarizing figure like Duterte, was insufficient to meet the needs of a democratic society. Real unity, as scholars and activists argued, required more than rhetorical pledges or loyalty to a predecessor’s legacy. It demanded a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths, including the human cost of Duterte’s policies and the systemic weaknesses they exposed. It required correcting past mistakes, whether through legal accountability for human rights violations or robust reforms to prevent corruption. Above all, it necessitated prioritizing the public interest over factional loyalty or political expediency.
The “whateverist” approach, however, offered none of these. Instead, it provided a façade—a superficial reassurance that comforted loyalists while leaving the nation’s deeper divisions unaddressed. This political copium may have temporarily sustained the Marcos–Duterte alliance, but it came at the cost of eroding public trust and exacerbating governance challenges. As the administration moved forward, it faced a critical choice: to continue clinging to the illusion of unity through blind loyalty to the past, or to embrace a more inclusive, transparent, and accountable approach to governance that could truly unify the nation. The early evidence suggested that the former path was not only unsustainable but also detrimental to the democratic aspirations of the Filipino people. Only by reckoning with the failures of “whateverism” could the administration hope to build a legacy that transcended the shadows of its predecessor.