SOME so-called analysts are using the notion of “elitism” to advance their propaganda against the opposition. The claim goes like this: the opposition cannot be understood by the masses because theirs is a politics of moralizing and intellectualism. It is further argued that this elitism is the cause of the country’s divide, which is not necessarily class-based but basically the hegemonic and unjust structural relations in Philippine society.
This way of reading the “politics of our time” actually contests another reading: “populism.” This other view argues that the opposition are not elitists but simply “marginalized” politicians by a popular leader. This popular leader uses charisma and rides with the waves of “mass support.” Because of this apparent broad support, the leader exploits people’s inclinations even those that run counter to the principles of democracy. For example, the sentiments of the victimized masses against criminals are used in order to violate due process and human rights.
There is a thin line between democracy and populism. This is not a novel assertion because Aristotle, thousands of years ago, already said that political systems are not distinguishable in terms of number but by the virtue of the ruler. Unfortunately, even this thin line is used as a means against anyone who opposes an administration that has authoritarian tendencies. Any gesture or word of opposition would end up being labeled as elitist and lacking in understanding of “grassroots sentiments.” Propagandists of populism have succeeded in selling their fiction under a new name: “radical democracy.”
To accuse the opposition of elitism and to deny that the current administration is populist is not only absurd but lacking in honesty. More explicitly: are we to believe that the president of the republic is not part of the elite and that his administration is not populist? If the president is not part of the elite, are we to believe that he is part of the masses? A person who is sitting in the highest level of the power structure cannot be considered non-elite. He may be successful in painting a picture that he belongs to the masses, but he is not part of the people that he is governing. Anyone who claims to be part of the masses should not be sitting in a position of power.
Behind the appearance of a president who is not elitist are spins and strategies that should make him appear as one nevertheless the objective is simply “to stay in power.” It should be easy to understand then why the depictions of simple clothing (of not wearing a necktie), speaking Tagalog instead of English, and eating fish and rice (only) during one’s birthday. All of these are part of the spectacle, and they are effective.
The strategy, however, can go as far as speaking the language of the streets. Memes for example portray the stark contrast between a president who is “bastos” and “desente.” The former is associated with political will and progress, while the latter is associated with traditional politics and underdevelopment. The well-studied propaganda can really go as far as associating this populist government with the “debased” conditions in our country. The so-called “elite opposition” are labeled as moralistic whose cards are losing. One said to be an analyst says that this call for a moral leader no longer works. This reading at first looks pragmatic but coming from an academic it is actually “reckless.”
Moralist discourses, even if they are correct, are belittled. The call for an ethical governance is associated with the hypocrisy of the opposition. The ruling party is associated with the people’s poverty and all those sentiments and feelings of “being left behind.” Apparently, this works so much because people in this country “love melodrama.” One can see this kind of discourse among those who are critical of a Manila-centered development and even those who claim to be intellectuals but feel that they are “marginalized” in the academic structure.
Let us have a tentative ending here: this kind of analysis of contemporary Philippine politics where the opposition is associated with elitism and the administration as the representation of the marginalized is tempting. And many have been convinced to read through these lenses the “politics of our time.” However, are we sure that those in power, just because they do fist-bumps and claim to represent the periphery, are not elitist? Or are we twisting the definition of elitism to conceal some other elitist interests?