It’s presidential election season again. The airwaves these days are buzzing with news about the ongoing campaigns—doubly so because our elections are happening at the same time as those of the United States. Anyone who’s even casually followed a presidential campaign should see all the telltale signs of one. There is a recurring formula: (Insert candidate name here) is running for the (Insert voter group here) to stop (Insert topical problem here).
It doesn’t matter if the problem is poverty, corruption, or immigration for our American friends. Presidentiables know how to whip the crowd into frenzy over something, and off that enthusiasm, run a campaign. But of course, these are politicians we’re talking about, skilled in the art of rhetoric. They aren’t going to sound like that crazy guy on the street corner yelling about how society is broken. The formula breeds politicians who use honeyed words and perfectly practiced body language to get their point across, without offending anybody or coming off as too authoritarian. Because if you say anything that can be interpreted as derogatory towards any race, gender, or class, you might find yourself swimming in criticism from the various groups reacting and taking offense. The term people use for how they behave is one most of us, if not all of us, have heard before: political correctness.
This time around, however, even a casual observer such as myself has noticed a shift in the behavior of contemporary politicians. While most still act how you would expect them to, every now and then, there is an aberration to that mold. In the United States, you have Donald Trump, who doesn’t seem to be bound by the need to be politically correct. It’s a characteristic of his that has gained him numerous critics and detractors, but maybe just as many supporters.
The topic of race is a volatile one in the United States and most politicians wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole. Trump on the other hand, has offended large swathes of the American public with his views on the Mexican immigrant population. He said that he imagines some of them are good people, but he also said that the rest are drug dealers and rapists. Political career over, right? Wrong. Trump is still one of the leading contenders to be the Republican Party’s Presidential nominee.
In an increasingly hypersensitive American society, why and how has Trump gained mass appeal? In their 2014 election, the United States saw their lowest voter turn-out since WWII. It’s almost like the dog and pony show of politics has gotten so routine and monotonous that there is no longer public interest in them.
While maybe not as overtly offensive as Trump, I think the Philippines also has a Presidentiable whose platform and general ideology is vastly different from the traditional politician we have all become exposed to, and are slowly tiring of—Presidential Candidate Rodrigo Duterte. The mayor of Davao has always had a notorious reputation, and this election, he has chosen to run with it.
During his term as Mayor of Davao City, several of his actions were considered by many as extreme or radical. He threatened to kill thieves and criminals over the radio, saying that last Christmas would be the last one they would be celebrating. He even threatened to abolish congress over the Pork Barrel corruption case, in which many congressmen were implicated. Mayor Duterte is a blunt character, and he seems to be willing to do whatever it takes to achieve his goal of cleansing the Philippines of criminality and corruption. While it is indeed an admirable cause, the way he wants to achieve it has caused mixed reactions: Some are revolted by the overt infringement of human rights, but at the same time, several are impressed, and believe Duterte’s presidency to be the necessary change that the country needs.
It was only forty years ago that the Philippines lost its democratic rights, and since then, the infringement on any type of freedom has been a very touchy subject. A few years ago, the mere suggestion of intention to abolish one of the tent poles of our democracy would have crowds of angry citizens in protest. But Duterte’s threat of abolishing congress has not been met with collective outrage—instead, his campaign has gained momentum and his appeal to Filipinos grows even stronger.
Now the question is, why the sudden change? I believe that the candidates changed because we changed. For years, they have been saying the same things in the same ways over and over again—this monotony, in my opinion, has turned into a veil of apathy that’s infected many of the voting population. These aberrant candidates may be the result of the people’s growing indifference toward the current system, and their desire for a candidate who is as far away from the traditional politician brought about by today’s formula as possible. Now Duterte comes along, like soap through grease.
Would Duterte ever actually abolish congress? Maybe, although I personally doubt it. He, like Trump, was not even considered to have any shot of winning. As the proverbial dark horse of our election, his blunt character and radical mindset have set himself apart from the rest of the pack. What many people perceive as politically incorrect and offensive, others perceive as refreshing honesty. What many perceive as an immoral breach of human rights, others perceive as a necessary evil, doing what needs to be done to achieve discipline.
For some people, Trump and Duterte are no longer politicians, and have managed to free themselves of the title’s negative connotations. Several people find it refreshing to see guys who walk up on stage, avoid honeyed words and speeches, and say what’s actually on their minds. These are the people who, I believe, are fed up with the system and long for radical change. People who would’ve thought politics would be great if it weren’t for all these politicians.
