I DO not find the use of "elite versus non-elite" as an accurate and appropriate lens in reading the so-called politics of our time. Those who argue that the "yellows" are elitist while the president (RRD) is not, are guilty of being selective in their labeling or classification.
Anyone who comes forward to offer his leadership is at that moment, ready to "detach" from the masses. And anyone who is "detached" (or is willing to move a step ahead) from the masses is either an elite or paving his way towards elitism.
Elitism after all is not just a name or a label that one should use without further qualifications. If it is, as Gaetano Mosca puts it, the "class that rules" then there are things that make this rule possible, and they are not difficult to identify: money, land, military, religion, local support, connections with businesses, and forms of propagandist machinery. These are, according to Mosca, "social forces" which are prerequisites to "social significance."
Do all political candidates have this, including those who are not part of the so-called "forces of EDSA" (or the opposition)? Apparently, they have. Whoever would say that BBM or Manny P. are non-elite simply because they "stand and represent" the masses who do not prefer Leni Robredo, are either being dishonest or erroneous in his analysis. All politicians, all those who aspire for power are within that circle or loop of elitism.
It is, therefore, a waste of time to repeat the issue of elitism as the 2022 elections draws near. The question, for me, is not about elitism. After all, do we really have choices from the non-elites? The question instead is, who among these politicians are most ready and capable to carry out the demands of the country in the next six (6) years? Sadly, this is a question that is very much forgotten because people have focused on faces and family alliances. We have fed too much of our hunger for drama manifest in our usage of symbolisms like "eagles" and "lions." In the end we have not raised the more serious questions that should be answered by all presidentiables.
For example, how would the next president prepare the country should there be another round of pandemic? Concretely, how will this next president prepare us in terms of our healthcare system and health facilities, public transportation, and food security. Housing and urban spacing have been contributory factors to our challenges during the pandemic, so how would a BBM or a Leni address this? Equally serious, is the need to enhance the needed IT infrastructures for an online or blended learning.
In answering these questions, we need to include in our selection process the importance of accountability and integrity. But, again, unfortunately, some people are trying to de-emphasize this in their discourse. They associate these criteria with "moralism" and "puritanism." While I agree that the electoral process is not a search for the next Mother Teresa, however, tolerating politicians who have obvious records of corruption should be unacceptable even by ordinary sinners. And the "radicalization" of our interpretations to muddle the issue of corruption and accountability, is not only going too far but also descending too low towards debasement.
Understanding these things is surely not easy for all Filipinos. Apparently, not all of us have the means and training to analyze the "politics of our time." That is why it is important for academics, analysts, and commentators to be prudent, honest, and balanced in their interpretations. An academic or a political analyst should be clear whether he is genuinely analyzing politics or endorsing a candidate.
The real issue that the next president will confront is the development of people from the north to the south of this country. But the better candidate need not be someone simply aligned with the current administration who is from Mindanao. The insistence that "so and so" is better because of our regional biases - indicates that stronger than our democracy is our tribalism.