#halalan2016

Habang palapit nang palapit ang buwan ng Mayo,

Papaubos naman nang papaubos ang gana kong bumoto

Bagamat hindi nauubusan ng gimik, isyu at samu’t saring propaganda itong mga pulitiko

Nakakasawa parin ang kani-kanilang istilo

Ang dapat sanang simpleng pagpapakilala sa madla,

Nagiging sanhi pa ng mga alitang pang-bata

Sa ganoon ba natin ipagtitiwala ang ating lalawiga’t bansa?

Huwag na nating hanapin ang pagbabago sa kanila

Sapat na ang ilang taong pagkabulok ng sumisibol nating pag-asa

Na nadidiligan lamang tuwing papalapit ang halalan

At agad ring tatapakan matapos ang ani'y pakinabangan

Ibibigkis nang mahigpit,

Isisilong sa malawak at matibay na kamalig… na kailan ma'y hindi ka makatitikim

Magtitiis ka na lamang sa nangalaglag na mga butil

Maghahanda upang payabunging muli ang mga nalagas na uhay

Huwag na nating isisi sa kanila ang usad-pagong na pamumuhay

Tayo ang pumipili ng sa ati'y mamamahala

Tayo ang rin ang pumili ng mga taong mapagsamantala

Mga taong nagtamasa ng dapat sana'y ating biyaya

Tayo rin ang pumili ng mga magagaling –

Magagaling sa panunumpa ng mga salitang sa ilong nanggaling

Tayo rin ang pumili ng mga malikhain –

Malikhain sa mga pangakong kaakit-akit lamang sa pakinig

Tayo ang pumili ng mga nakakaiintindi sa atin –

At nakakaalam ng mga kahinaan natin

Kaya ngayo'y tayo,

Tayo at wala nang iba pa, ang dapat sisihin

                                                      I hear you

The second week of November 2016 began with speculation and analysis concerning the possible results of the US elections and what the potential effects are on the rest of the world.

By the middle of Wednesday afternoon this week, late in the night of the 2016 US national elections, mere hours after most exit polls were predicting between an 80% to 90% probability of a Clinton win, Donald Trump took Wisconsin, gaining  276 electoral votes, and pulling off what many media outlets are calling a “stunning upset.”   As analysts strove to understand what had happened, media outlets referenced the similarly unexpected UK vote to exit the European Union. Local pundits drew parallels between the Trump and Duterte campaign, at least, in terms of messaging. Unlike the pollsters studying the US elections, our local pollsters actually called it correctly - our polls had Duterte winning by a comfortable margin.

Leaders

Many local pundits found an eerie similarity between the Trump rhetoric and the Duterte campaign rhetoric. The central theme of both campaigns boils down to a single word: change.

Both candidates painted themselves as outsiders, appealing to those who felt that the current system is broken. Both candidates spoke to those who felt cut off from the incumbent leadership. Their messages were simple: I hear you. I will push for the change you want. This, shared interests, is the first connection leaders need to make in order to earn that essential foundation of leadership: trust.

They articulated clear and simple goals. Traditional politicians called these goals simplistic and unrealistic. But that, unfortunately, was not what many voters wanted to hear. And, in the age of the sound bite, long-winded goals get lost in translation.

Both candidates painted themselves as strong-minded leaders, unlikely to bend to the status quo, and especially unlikely to be swayed by those currently in power or having influence over those in power. This is one of the other foundations of trust – creating the belief that the leader can bring you to the desired goal.

Analysts, both of the Trump campaign and the Duterte campaign, point out that these are not campaigns that could have been ran by the normal political candidate. They were made possible because these were candidates that had built a reputation and track record of being mavericks. They have always been outspoken and unafraid. Having painted themselves as outsiders, they are unlikely to be judged by the same stringent standards used for other candidates.

This allowed them to run radically aggressive campaigns. Mudslinging, which many campaigns end up deteriorating to once the opponent becomes too popular, is extremely difficult when all the mud you have to sling has already been proudly slung – and by the person you are trying to smear.

New world

Both candidates ran atypical campaigns and both ran aggressive social media campaigns. More importantly, both Duterte and Trump were candidates cast in a radically different mold than your usual candidate.

To gain insight into national elections, it might make sense to ask what people look for. Havas, a multinational advertising and public relations company recently released the results of an online survey of 11,976 adults in 37 markets. The question was: Which would you prefer: (a) a national leader with a clear vision and the will to execute it or (b) a national leader who is collaborative and inclusive, and who makes decisions based on the will of the people? 67% - that’s two thirds! - of Filipinos chose clarity of vision and will to execute over being collaborative and inclusive. For comparison, Singaporeans also chose strong leadership (59%). By contrast, Japanese chose inclusiveness and collaboration (57%).

This little bit of information might explain why that seemingly innocuous criticism hurled against Roxas was so successful – that he was not strong-willed and did not have his own clear agenda. Until almost the very end, the Roxas campaign essentially ran on a promise of “continuation.” For many citizens, all this meant was “more of the same.” The electorate, evidenced by the combined preference for Duterte and Poe versus Roxas, was clearly for some change. It could actually be argued that Duterte won against Poe on the basis of a very simple matter: that his track record made it believable that he would actually be strong-willed enough to execute.

In the Philippines, where political will is often whispered as a lament by both public and private sectors, it should have come as no surprise that the will to execute would resonate powerfully. The question, of course, is what does it say as a country that we would prefer that our leader choose our path for us?

As for the American pollsters, we should point out there were a few polls that actually predicted a Trump win. But of the big boys, only LA Times consistently picked Trump to lead. There are many theories about why pollsters got it wrong but here’s an interesting tidbit: On November 7, Nevo.news posted a Facebook analytics map predicting a Trump win. Who were they listening to? And how?

First published 116 September 2016 by The Standard  in the column Integrations by Maria Elena “Maya” Baltazar Herrera.

Beware of the boy who cries wolf for he might be a wolf after all. He calls for being eternal vigilant as a price of our liberty, but he did not mention that our liberty was once trampled upon by his family. 

It’s over. Don’t be desperate. 

Someone should stop hallucinating and start accepting the truth.