Is populism the solution to our politics?
- Resonate Creatives
- Feb 19
- 4 min read
By Nicomedes B. Alviar
“WE NEED GOOD LEADERS!”
Amidst the scandalous, systemic corruption in the government’s flood control projects involving mind-boggling trillions of pesos, and the resulting crisis in our bastardized institutions beginning with the Department of Public Works and Highways, and both Houses of Congress, we hear a louder and louder clamor for good leaders to replace the bad leaders who steal public money at the expense of lost property, crops, and lives because the budgeted, large-scale infrastructure deliverables turned out to be substandard, unfinished, or ghost projects.
We pin our hopes on a savior to bring us out of this mess, like another Cory Aquino, the democracy icon hailed worldwide who led a seemingly impossible task of overthrowing an entrenched authoritarian regime.
Our leader-centered politics have always been largely personality driven. Look at our elections, and how they have become popularity contests as actors, singers, comedians, boxers, and the like transform into political leaders overnight, or traditional politicians campaigning by singing, dancing, cracking jokes, shaking hands in wakes, and doing just about anything to win votes. Digital technology exacerbates this kind of populism, as Facebook, TikTok, X, etc. enable politicians to build their image to please the masa as well as to spread misinformation against their opponents.
Political parties, ideologies, and governance platforms don’t matter because politicians can switch allegiance anytime, anyway. Personal favors are also indispensable. Political candidates distribute cash or various forms of ayuda and they promise jobs, scholarships, basketball courts, etc. in exchange for votes. We call this patronage politics, which has been around since the elections of the last century. And because it’s been that long, populism and patronage have become deeply cultural to us, embedded in our mindset and social practices.
Historically, populist presidents have dominated our politics leaving us with a lasting impact that charted our nation’s trajectory. We have happy memories of Ramon Magsaysay and Cory Aquino; unpleasant stories about Manuel Quezon, Ferdinand Marcos, Sr., and Rodrigo Duterte.
Generally, populists — oftentimes skirting institutions and formal processes — directly appeal to the people, projecting themselves as one with the common man. Adeptly using masa language — some are gifted with charisma — populists capitalize on wide socio-economic inequalities and frustration over inept leadership, promising swift and radical action if elected in office. For these demagogues, society is a simplified fight between the corrupt elites versus the oppressed majority.
But then, populism is not particular to the Philippines. Worldwide, we see a surge of populist leaders even among highly democratic societies with strong institutions. Populist Giorgia Meloni, for example, has been Italy’s undisputed Prime Minister for almost four years now.
Rightist Victor Orban has been Hungary’s Prime Minister since 2010. Then, there are popular nationalists like Geert Wilders of Netherlands and Marine Le Pen of France.
Volodomyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s hero-President, is a former comedian.
In South America, populist presidents have always been a standard feature of politics; Brazilian Lula Da Silva and Argentinian Javier Milei are among those presently in office.
Then, there’s President Donald Trump of the world’s top democracy who has a very personal approach in running his government, and likes making policy pronouncements via X and Trutch Social.
But is populism all that bad as to be detestable at all costs?
Professor Bojan Bugaric of the University of Sheffield talks about two types of populism: authoritarian and democratic. He argues that “despite the current hegemony of authoritarian populism, a democratic and anti-establishment populism is possible which combines elements of liberal and democratic convictions.” And such populism, he adds, speaks for the common people “with distinctive features (such as) prioritization of popular sovereignty, direct democracy, and a strong emphasis on anti-elitism.”
Harvard University’s Professor Dani Rodrik asserts “that when the interests of autonomous regulatory agencies, independent central banks, and global trade rules diverge significantly from those of the public, particularly in ways that exacerbate inequality or economic insecurity for a large segment of the population, a democratic response (which could be labeled as ‘populism’) is a legitimate political expression.”
Even Pope Francis in his encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, cites the need for good populists: “popular leaders, capable of interpreting the feelings and cultural dynamics of a people, and significant trends in society, … (and) by their efforts to unite and lead can become the basis of an enduring vision of transformation and growth” for the common good.
Definitely, a populism that promotes a more responsive, equitable, and inclusive democracy is a good thing for the Philippines. So, perhaps, instead of aiming for the moon of doing away with populism, we can instead aspire for good populism. This means getting different sectors (universities, the Church, civil society, professional organizations, etc.) involved in training competent, patriotic, and ethical leaders, and devoting more energy to voters’ education so that good leaders are elected in office. The task is big, but doable.
If one Vico Sotto can do much good for Pasig, imagine many Vico Sottos at the national level and in localities all over the country. If there is one ray of hope happening amidst the current crisis we are facing, it is the emergence of popular leaders courageously fighting corruption; Heidi Mendoza, Benjie Magalong, Vince Dizon, Cielo Magno, and Chel Diokno, to name a few.
Yes, we need good populists, and they have to be leaders who will build institutions so that when their popularity is gone, the seeds they’ve planted will continue growing.
Nicomedes B. Alviar is the dean of the School of Politics and Governance at the University of Asia and the Pacific.
Comments