Welcome to The Explainer Newsletter of Manuel L. Quezon III - Issue #1
This is the inaugural issue of The Explainer Newsletter. Thank you for being the pioneer subscribers to this effort. This will be a work in progress, in terms of frequency and content. It will definitely be weekly at a minimum; at this stage I'm thinking my working/thinking life revolves around three main endeavors:
Weekly column and the context for, and additional thoughts on, the topic at hand; I'd think this would also apply whenever I get an article or commentary published;
History, specifically the weekly semi-deep dives I take because of working on The Philippine Diary Project;
Thoughts on, or provoked by, other projects I undertake: for Patreons, maybe a semi-regular sneak peek on progress (or lack of it) and the methods/materials I go over. If plans for a podcast or YouTube take off, Patreons might expect early access or being audiences as they get put together. I'm open to suggestions!
What do you think? If this newsletter proves to be a key to unlocking material support for my work, then it will help make possible things I'd like to attempt, like a podcast or vlog (home-made documentaries, maybe?).
This week's The Long View
My column today looks at the motivation for asking the President to become the next vice-president; in ganging up on Pacquiao; and how the pandemic could be an antidote to being a lame duck.
My column made reference to three pictures (Picture 1 ; Picture 2 ; Picture 3). It can profitably read in tandem with a column by John Nery, What will Manny Pacquiao do now?, June 1, 2021.
Today's column ties in with my column last week, which suggested that conversion as a political objective has become obsolete; that social media's clout has been exaggerated; what will matter is the identification of biases that mobilize voters and collecting a coalition of motivational biases.
This column was already written when I encountered a column by Boo Chanco: The trolls have it, May 31, 2021.
Boo's thoughts made me wonder, what with his view on Social Media and the last campaign and his prescription for the coming campaign, that it could be a case study of the truth of the old saying, generals always fight the last war. Much to take apart here regarding his ultimate advice of fighting fire with fire. The flip side to fighting the next war like the last war, is what Adam Curtis suggests has been revealed about social media years after the Brexit/Trump; see this interview and what he has to say about Facebook and elections:
Tom Hodgkinson: Cambridge Analytica and Facebook are surely clever and manipulative though?
AC: I’m sure some really bad stuff went on. There’s no question about that. But where’s the evidence that it actually swayed elections? What we lost in the hysteria about it all, is the sense of: why did people really vote for Brexit and Trump? I maintain that all the evidence points to the fact that there is real anger and a sense of isolation in Britain and America. The results reflected that. For 20 years, they’ve been offered no choice between the political parties. They’ve been given this enormous button that says “Fuck off” and they’ve pressed it. That’s a rational thing to do. The problem with the professional classes is that they don’t know how to deal with that. Instead they turn to these other reasons, which of course are there. But it’s like they’re looking at a little part of something much, much bigger, which involves having to make political choices about what might have gone wrong in your society. Everyone goes: “Oh that’s magical!” about the internet, but so what? That’s actually just so banal. People go: “Oh it’s terrible, they’re manipulating us!” or: “They know so much about me!” Well, what do they know about you? Your shopping? That’s it? What they don’t know, actually, are all the things that you’ve forgotten which are your real intelligence, and that world that you live in your head, day by day – which is rich and extraordinary.
If you read the entirety of what Curtis suggests then it is easier to combine what happened then and what’s been happening since here.
What happened then was a kind of electoral insurgency where the parameters of the campaign (the economy and reform) suddenly became obsolete (replaced by the drug apocalypse and strongman nostalgia), and the result was a minority victory after the previously-successful minority coalition was split. But, since then, for all the ferocity of official rhetoric as echoed by their supporters, it doesn't seem anyone's minds have been changed either way.
So it’s not what we think: We think of campaigns as the race to convince; what social media revealed is the race to identify those minorities motivated by their grievances and get their support by echoing their grievances. This is why it doesn’t convince anyone new. Grievances or resentments, on the other hand, are great for maintaining group solidarity.
The thing is, that it's focused on The Leader and isn't (easily) transferrable. There's been a debate on whether
The purely Filipino dynamic at work here is the old one where being "balimbing" ("bandwagoneering" might be apt) is not behavior unique to elected officials: it's a national behavior. Time and again surveys show more claim to have voted for winner after the fact than actually did so on election day.
In turn, winning candidates think they have founded a movement gravitating around them only to discover this “popularity” is only as good as not being a lame duck.
We forget what also makes presidential contests 1992-2022 different from 1935-1965 (and, in a transitional sense, also 1969 and 1986): you do not need (in fact it’s impossible to achieve) a majority; what you need is a minority coalition only bigger than the next competitive minority coalition. This is not “politics is addition” in the sense Filipinos traditionally understand it, but rather politics as division.
Hence the contrast between the dilemma of 2016 when the then-ruling coalition had to try to prevent a split (the effort to maintain unity failed), and 2021 where ahead of 2022, the ruling coalition is embracing a split as its first task.
The failed effort to maintain 2010 coalition in 2016 showed how the administration then, was still fighting with pre-1986 politics in mind; whereas the (eventual winning) candidate embraced the appearance of an insurgency because it would motivate those with grievances it had identified as the components of its winning minority.
The 2022 Campaign
Both columns above are attempts to start triangulating the things that will affect the 2022 elections, by trying to go beyond the conventional wisdom and identify trends and circumstances that matter. As my two columns above pointed out:
An unusual power is the ability to discipline local governments on the pretext of pandemic control;
An unusual motivation (inspired, surely, by the very careful and cunning preparations of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for her post-presidency being unable to prevent her hospital arrest) is the large number of officials, including police top brass, who possibly fear the consequences of the so-called "War on Drugs";
The nature of presidential campaigns since 1992 being about obtaining a winning minority and not a majority.
Abi Valte in her June 1 column sketched out the electoral or campaign calendar:
After all, the filing of certificates of candidacy is only four months away, and the 2022 national elections now a mere 11 months down.
A lot of these movements remain largely unseen: alliances being formed, relationships being kept warm or being rekindled, all towards the end of assuring their patch of green in the political turf is preserved (or even perhaps expanded) after the elections. This can perhaps explain some of the sharper pronouncements coming from administration allies, especially those who are trying to establish themselves as viable candidates for higher positions.
The month of June in the year prior to the May elections is usually the time for benchmarking surveys, intended to aid would-be candidates in gauging their chances.
Within the four-month window between June to October, those exploring to run for national positions usually embark on campaigns to raise their awareness among voters in order to improve their standing either in public or private surveys.
Among political groups or parties, conversations should be ongoing on potential standard bearers or identifying candidates they will support among the current crop of would-be presidentiables. It seems that this process has been contentious thus far for PDP-Laban, given the very public power struggle among factions in the party.
So what's gotten people excited is the konfrontasi between Manny Pacquiao and friends and other party leaders in PDP-Laban. Note that neither Pacquiao or the people he's tangling with are old-timers when it comes to the party. As Prof. Jorge Tigno said in a private Tweet, in 2009 Pacquiao joined the NP; in 2010, the LP; in 2013, PDP-Laban: besides which he has his own regional part, the People's Champ Movement. Alfonso Cusi for his part, is a longtime associate of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who only joined the party in 2017 (in what can be described as a hostile takeover).
Cusi is key in relation to Arroyo because we forget that it's not just the incumbent President and his people who are conscious of having to watch their backs in the future; key figures from previous administrations have their own backs to watch, too.
All the fuss over Pacquio brings up these other topics: Sara Duterte and what passes for an Opposition in our country. After mighty efforts to make the President's factotum a viable successor, and the President toying with giving his blessing to outsiders like Pacquiao, the energies of the administration faithful are now focused on his daughter --but this means a Double Duterte ticket.
On the "Run, Sara, Run" ad campaign. In an era of mistrust of surveys, where social media has proven it hardens preconceived notions but doesn’t change minds, how do you create a bandwagon, or at least, a simulation of one? Tarpaulins is one way, apparently. But if it’s political folly to drink your own Kool-Aide, there’s a danger believing yourself.
I for one, remain unconvinced of the viability of a Sara Duterte candidacy, for one simple reason: the clan has no one competent to trust with running the home town bailiwick of Davao City.
Still, no one can ignore Sara Duterte and Ferdinand Marcos Jr. making a visitation serves to heighten both their prospects. Enter Magdalo.
The Magdalo, who have a party-list and are mostly identified with former Senator Trillanes, have long conducted surveys which have been discussed in political circles and the media from time to time. More recently the survey found Ferdinand Marcos Jr. the leading candidate in Luzon.
The prospects of Ferdinand Jr. have waxed and waned as his vice-presidential protest fizzled out and died. The late Danny Vazquez once told me that President Marcos had divided his fortune in three: one part for his wife, one part for his children, and the third part solely for the purpose of electing his son Ferdinand Jr., president. But, he said, Ferdinand Jr. had proven himself unable to maximize these gifts --"Beaten, and by a woman --a widow!" he snorted-- and so he was convinced the son would never be able to claim the seat of his father.
But all this goes to show the zeitgeist might remain by the current ruling clique or parts thereof, for some time to come; because in contrast to these intramurals there is the far more modest effort of what passes for the opposition.
1Sambayanan, the effort to create a kind of Convenor's Group for the opposition (for the origins of the concept of a Convenor's Group to select an opposition standard bearer, see my digest of political events from 1973-1983, "The fabric of freedom"), is poised to undertake an interesting social experiment.
The idea is to have a kind of convention open to the public; presumably people who register then have a chance to vote on a short list of candidates prescreened by the Convenors; the winner(s) would then constitute the official opposition slate.
Additional Readings/Viewings
I have long been a fan of Adam Curtis and his latest work is Can’t Get You Out of My Head: An Emotional History of the Modern World, which you can watch in six parts (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6). In many ways this epic series was the child of his w2016 documentary, Hypernormalisation. You can read interviews/reviews in The New Yorker, in Time, and Vogue and in Not Even Past.
William Pesek's been on a five-year roll torpedoing the pretensions of the current dispensation's economic managers. His Philippine Economy Is A Mess As Duterte Fiddles On Covid-19 makes for sobering reading.
Things to Watch Department
If I understand the above report correctly, House adopted theory that Constitution can be read literally, so a 2/3 majority of all (House+Senate) is enough to amend, without need of Senate participation; but this would still need a plebiscite? Contesting in Supreme Court is risky: opponents could lose. For a long time, I tried to maintain a timeline of efforts to amend the constitution: see Charter Change: An Annotated Timeline 1934-2014.
Tax rate for private schools has been 10% since 1968. Congress has suddenly raised it to 25% (after reducing it to 1% as part of pandemic relief). Sounds like trouble for private schools!
Rattling the Tin Cup
In case you feel like giving the gift that keeps on giving, you can support me and my work by means of Patreon.