Political deflection 101

This is an example of politicizing the budget hearing through the questions of a senator,” Vice President Sara Duterte complained to Sen. Grace Poe, chair of the Senate committee on finance, during the deliberation on the proposed 2025 budget of the Office of the Vice President.

The tensions started when Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked about the rationale behind various line items, including a P10-million allocation for the distribution of a children’s book about friendship that was authored by the Vice President. Rather than address the senator’s request for more information, VP Duterte accused her of politicizing government funds, referencing Hontiveros’ negative remarks about the Duterte administration at the Akbayan congress.

Deflection is a psychological defense mechanism where someone redirects the narrative away from the topic at hand to divert the attention and pressure from themselves. While people often do it unconsciously, there are also times when deflection is strategically used to muddle up the conversation and avoid accountability. Deflection usually arises when a person who feels attacked wants a way to regain control of a challenging situation.

Deflection should not have a place in political discourse because it hinders productive dialogue and exacerbates polarization. For instance, budget deliberations are an integral part of our government’s checks and balances, and every official should welcome scrutiny and clarifications about the indicated items. When VP Duterte framed the questions about her office’s proposed budget as politically motivated, she may have, inadvertently or not, shifted the focus away from the crux of the matter, while also potentially undermining among her supporters the legitimacy of the proceedings.

Recognizing deflection and its various forms, particularly in high-stakes political contexts, is an important skill in holding public officials accountable. The most common way of deflecting is using a non sequitur—a statement that does not logically follow from the previous conversation—to change the subject and dodge further questions about the issue. Another tactic is using fake apologies where the speaker appears to apologize without truly accepting responsibility. Statements like “I’m sorry if you were offended,” subtly shift the blame onto the listener for their reaction, rather than addressing the topic.

The most effective forms of deflection, however, are those that contain a grain of truth. “Whataboutism” is a rhetorical tactic wherein a person deflects criticism by pointing out the wrongdoing of others and highlighting similar faults of their critics. Several Western media outlets have called out former president Rodrigo Duterte for his whataboutism response regarding the extrajudicial killings under his term. He usually counters by pointing out the International Criminal Court’s lack of actions in other Western-perpetuated colonial wars and killings, asserting that the ICC is hypocritical for having double standards. The power of whataboutism is that it often creates a false equivalence between unrelated issues, suggesting that because others have also acted poorly, the current issue is invalid or less significant.

I was surprised to find out that female public officials are more vulnerable to certain deflection tactics. Interruptions are another way to disrupt the conversation flow since they prevent the speaker from completing their thoughts and effectively conveying their points. A 2022 research that analyzed over 24,000 US congressional committee hearings from 1998 to 2018 found that women are more likely to be interrupted than men during these sessions. The study also revealed that women are twice as likely to be interrupted when they are discussing women’s issues compared to other topics. Given that we already have very few female representation in government leadership positions, these interruptions could serve as another major impediment to advancing women-focused agendas.

It is frustrating to be on the receiving end of deflection. But giving in to one’s emotions is exactly playing into what the deflector wants since strong reactions could be used as another diversion tactic. To counter deflection, one must remain calm and neutral, so it is easier to: a) pinpoint when a conversation is being redirected; and b) steer the conversation back to the original issue through open-ended questions that will compel the deflector to engage with the topic at hand.

Deflection could be a powerful tool for manipulating political rhetoric. As engaged citizens, we need to be able to recognize and challenge instances of deflection whenever it occurs. Public officials are accountable to the people. No question should be ignored, sidestepped, or deflected especially when it comes to the use of public funds. Especially in the name of friendship.

[email protected]