THE presidential election in the Philippines did not disappoint in its promise of drama, intensity, and high stakes. The nation is at a crossroads, as is the whole eastern Pacific region, and one of the most important offices in this part of the world went up for grabs.
Like many of you, I watched the campaign with keen interest. After all, the outcome of this election would not only affect the Philippines, but the future of the Pacific family including the superpower rivalry between China and the United States. Now that a winner has emerged, we are getting reactions from every corner of the region. Here is what some are saying.
Many commentators, both within and outside the Philippines, agreed that the primary issues of the campaign were corruption, the Covid crisis, and the nation’s relationship with China. On all these points, outgoing president Duterte built a legacy of strongman-style, ends-justify-the-means action. Voters saw the team of Marcos and Sara Duterte as a continuation of that approach.
Zack Beauchamp writes, “Ferdinand Marcos Jr., widely referred by his nickname, Bongbong, ran on a ticket with Vice President-elect Sara Duterte — the daughter of incumbent President Rodrigo Duterte, a populist most famous for his policy of extrajudicial killings of suspected drug dealers, who pushed the Philippines toward authoritarianism during his six years in office. Neither of these candidates ran away from their parents: on the contrary, they embraced them. And voters in the Philippines rewarded them for it.” So, Filipinos did not vote for Marcos despite his family legacy, but because of it.
Others agree on the connection between Rodrigo Duterte and Marcos. Dean Dulay, a political scientist at Singapore Management University, comments that “Duterte is the first president who represented an alternative vision for the direction of the country. Marcos is a continuation of that vision — and wants to make that known.” But does Marcos really represent an alternative vision for the country, or a return to an old, familiar vision, one that many older Filipinos remember with nostalgia and younger ones do not remember at all?
Many believe the outgoing Duterte will be protected by the incoming Duterte, who will shelter him from investigations into crimes against humanity. Marvin Joseph Ang, a well-known commentator on the Philippines, thinks that “President Rodrigo Duterte, whose mismanagement of the pandemic and crimes against humanity for his brutal war on drugs had made the country a living hell, will not be held accountable for his crimes. It is not rocket science to assume that his daughter, the incoming vice president, will do everything in her power to block whatever attempts of independent investigation or probe into her father’s dealings during his administration.” Reading various news sources throughout the Pacific, the fear that Duterte will escape accountability for his abuses is widespread.
It is too soon to tell what a Marcos administration will mean for the Pacific, as many questions loom. Will Marcos rebuild the relationship with the United States that was so heavily damaged by Duterte? Or will Marcos continue to woo China and further confuse the international situation? Does Marcos intend to continue the war on drugs with its illegal killings, or will he abandon the campaign? Will the new administration shield Duterte from answering for his crimes, as many believe? Years from now, will history judge the Bongbong Marcos presidency as a step in the right direction, or a miserable return to the dark past?
BC Cook, PhD lived on Saipan and has taught history for 20 years. He currently resides on the mainland U.S.
BC Cook
