Among the messages being spread by presidential aspirant Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is the idea that the situation of Philippine society has worsened after the Edsa revolution that toppled his father’s government. According to his narrative, corruption and economic underdevelopment remain because of the misdirected and incoherent policies of the post-Edsa administrations. To solve this, he claimed in a televised interview that he will be a “unifying President” who “wants to synchronize our efforts” towards social ends.
In 2016, a similar campaign slogan was declared by then presidential aspirant Rodrigo Duterte. A few days before the last presidential elections, Duterte said that the administration of Benigno Aquino III was divisive, implementing only policies that benefit his elite party’s interests. Claiming to adhere to due process and the presumption of innocence, he, nonetheless, would not allow individuals or entities to “destroy the children or this country.” Through sheer political will and a “text message,” Duterte promised that within weeks, “everybody behaves.”
For these individuals, national interest takes precedence over individual ones. Defined as a state-national ideology, it purports a nation in crisis. As such, the state needs to protect the nation from all (real or fake) disruptions. This ideology originated from Ferdinand Marcos Sr., who imposed Martial Law to quell social unrest. In his case, the crisis was instigated by extremist groups on two sides: the communists and the oligarchs. For Duterte, the crisis was the rampant use of dangerous drugs, and now, for Marcos Jr., the issue is Covid-19. In their campaigns, they promised to bring about a swift end to social disruptions by removing all encumbrances society imposed.
In this ideology, a crucial element is to demolish institutions and social processes that have constricted earlier administrations and accordingly precipitated the supposed crisis. With the help of the military, this paves the way to a dictatorship or other extrajudicial measures. In the case of Marcos Sr., a new constitution was created to legalize his authoritarian power. Duterte, meanwhile, engaged in a drug war and weaponized laws to coerce the media and other democratic institutions to accept his directives. Even before reaching the presidency, Marcos Jr. shows a disregard for institutions in his attempt to revise history.
Nevertheless, despite the support of economic managers or technocrats, these governments were unable to deliver their promises. Under Marcos Sr., the country experienced a deep financial and economic crisis. Burdened by huge loans, the succeeding administrations were hampered by lack of resources, causing the economy to lag behind its Asian neighbors.
Under Duterte, even with his popularity and political power, the government’s pandemic response has been a failure. The current decline in infection cases comes at a huge cost. In September 2021, the country recorded the highest unemployment rate this year at 8.9 percent, as the scarring effects of the lockdowns took a toll on the whole economy. According to Neda, the total costs of the Covid-19 and the quarantines amounted to P41.4 trillion, thereby resulting in a dissatisfaction with the government, precipitating the country’s worst economic recession and reducing consumption, investment, and worker productivity in the next 10 years.
Given these disappointments, why would Marcos Jr. and his “party-mate” Sara Duterte insist on the continuity of this nation-state ideology espoused by Marcos Sr. and Duterte? Apart from personal reasons, their campaign seeks to attribute these failures to weak governance, and not to ideological weaknesses.
However, this belief falsely assumes that the social disruptions, such as the effects of Covid-19, are external and can be eliminated through sheer political will. Social problems, such as inadequate health systems, originate from within the existing social inequalities and disparities that limit social mobility. The healing begins not from executive orders but from an acceptance of misdeeds. Solutions must be negotiated through the joint efforts and initiatives in society to promote, first and foremost, the individual.
The nation-state ideology is therefore anathema to social cohesion, which is a means and an end of social change.
By definition, a society is “cohesive” if it improves the well-being of all its members, fights exclusion and marginalization, creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust, and offers its members the opportunity of upward social mobility. Economist Dani Rodrik found compelling evidence that a divided society responded worse to natural disasters than did those with united societies. The lack of concern for the poor explains this government’s shallow response to the pandemic. William Easterly, another influential economist, presented evidence that the lack of social cohesion, such as income inequality and fractionalization, correlates with the quality of institutions which in turn determines economic growth and social change.
In contrast, the “unifying” platform of Marcos Jr. leads to tyranny. Children are beholden to their fathers.
Dr. Leonardo A. Lanzona, Jr. is Professor of Economics at the Ateneo de Manila University.