Interesting read for political analysts, scary prospect for regular readers
Richard Heydarian’s column (“Marcos Jr. presidency: Three possible scenarios,” 3/22/22) would be an interesting read for political analysts but for ordinary citizens like me who fear the prospect of a Marcos victory, this kind of academic treatise only tends to detract from the existential threat facing our country today. The threat is very clear and dreadful: the triumph of dynastic and self-seeking political forces made possible by systematic disinformation and historical distortion. The challenge in the coming elections will therefore be to not only prevent the most unqualified and dangerous people from being elected, but to put a break on the deep moral and intellectual descent of our electorate, which has been grossly manipulated and led by blatant lies in choosing the country’s leaders.
This is the only time in our political history when a candidate can be thrust to the presidency by sheer refurbishing of his obscure image as a public official and blotting out the historical record of his parents’ plundering and human rights abuses through social media. No other presidential election has reached such heights of deceptive political and cultural propaganda using modern communication tools.
And yet some political pundits and observers merrily talk or write in mainstream media about how survey results predict election outcomes, how candidates can improve their campaign strategies, how political endorsements impact on a candidate’s standing, what post-election scenarios will play out—anything except the most overriding issue of the May elections: the existence of a well-funded Marcos propaganda machinery out to disparage rivals and corrupt people’s perceptions and knowledge of historical realities to influence voter preference. They know this but seem reluctant to openly talk about how it irreparably damages the integrity of the elections. They appear unruffled that the coming elections have been reduced to a veritable battle between good and evil, with the latter’s victory spelling certain doom for the country.
Do they intentionally try to project a neutral posture before the public to preserve their professional reputation? Or are they afraid of calling out the dictator’s son for his outright lies because of his strong chance of winning? Whatever their motivation, I am dismayed by political commentators who do not seem disturbed by attempts of powerful forces to make a mockery of our electoral system and just relegate it to the background in their discourses. I wish they would delve deeper into this ominous development and not deal with the coming elections as your usual presidential elections of the past. They should take an unequivocal moral stand on this singular and overarching issue of massive disinformation being waged by the Marcos camp and be a catalyst in thwarting it. If the outcome of the presidential election will be determined by lies instead of the truth, all their political analysis and jargon are just worthless.
DONATO P. SOLIVEN, Antipolo City
