Anyone 40 years old or younger has no direct understanding of what the Philippines was like prior to February 22, 1986.
There is nothing wrong with that. Human history has been passed down by second-hand oral and written tradition for tens of thousands of years. We learn history from the factual—and sometimes not-so-factual—recollections of the people who were there. Want to know what the Philippines was like on December 8, 1941 when Japan invaded? Ask one of the 92,000 Filipinos who were born in 1930 or before and was at least 11 years old on that date.
But even then, it is all based on the perception of the speaker and of the listener. We want to define “perception” as “the ability to correctly see, hear, or become aware of something.” However, the truth of “perception” is, “A mindset from which we believe what we perceive to be accurate, and we create our own realities based on those perceptions.” It is not “what you see is what you get.” It is usually “what you think you see is what you get.”
South China Morning Post: “The Philippines was seen as least corrupt when the drug trade thrived. When the government of Rodrigo Duterte began its fight against corruption, the ranking fell. Myanmar has steadily improved, while more than half a million Rohingya Muslims have fled persecution into Bangladesh.”
Is the public’s perception of a candidate more important than policy?
American journalist James Fallows wrote a long piece in The Atlantic magazine in 1987 on the 1st anniversary of 1986 People Power Revolution. Fallows spent many weeks in the Philippines on two trips. He cited the works of Carmen Navarro Pedrosa. “Imelda always pretended to be an aristocrat, Corazon Aquino really was one: “Her jewels were truly heirlooms, not recent purchases from Van Cleef and Arpels. She was a true bluestocking, educated in the United States, and fluent in French. She represented all that Imelda had ever aspired to.” After Edsa, “The traditional upper class was back in its traditional place.”
The Cory administration was besieged by coup attempts, unstoppable brownouts, and the never-ending insurgencies. The 1992 election had every traditional politician running: Danding Cojuangco, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Salvador Laurel, Imelda Marcos, Ramon Mitra Jr., Fidel V. Ramos, and Jovito Salonga. Ramos took 24 percent of the vote.
Was it because Ramos was perceived as someone who could successfully manage a large organization—the government—and had the experience of solving problems? Joseph Estrada won the presidency in 1998 with a landslide 39 percent of the final nationwide tally. Did the Estrada election come because the lower economic groups saw him as their voice? Estrada: “It is now the turn of the masses to experience liberation.”
A bad economy and corruption first brought Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to Malacañang. Reelected in 2004, government fiscal reform helped get the Philippines through the 2008 global debt crisis. But the GMA administration was high drama from the Edsa 2 protests to “Hello Garci.” Was Benigno Aquino III elected in 2010 because he was perceived as the more stable and incorruptible candidate?
Aquino’s economy was strong but there was a series of perceived failures, including the Manila hostage crisis, the Typhoon Yolanda response and recovery, the botched Mamasapano operation and the Zamboanga Siege. Was Rodrigo Duterte elected in 2016 because he was recognized as decisive and strong-willed, better able to tackle and address the nation’s problems?
Now the big question: What will the voters want to perceive in their final choice for president in 2022?