Is Baguio Anti-Dynasty? (Part 2)

During the midterm elections, from the campaign period leading up to the results, it showed Baguio’s collective judgment flawed with speculative pronouncements against opposing parties. As if they don’t know the truth given Baguio’s demographics and its once neighborly setting. It’s laughable and at the same time a bit aggravating how despite “receipts” of negative campaigning through varied measures and manifestos and through their “propagandists”, they have the audacity to refute such (dis)course of action. They’re rather claiming the decency of a conscientious campaign strategy. From grammatically-challenged trolls to celebrated figures, the most dangerous promoter/endorser is one who weighs-in their argumentation through an “overweening rhetoric”. It’s because it takes advantage of the naive and uneducated rank’s gullibility. But then again, is that a calculated scheme considering numbers have time-and-again substantiated how thinking voters are totally outnumbered… Do they think we’re that ignorant? Is Baguio really losing its small town “everybody knows everybody” essence or is it taking a different route in recognizing the interrelations of its citizens leaning more on the context of “to each their own” outlook? Kanya-kanya na? Divided we have become… or have we? Divisive in the sense that other than it implies individuation, “kanya-kanya” could likewise signify as that of possessiveness ~ “his/hers/theirs” (kanya ‘to, kanya yun, kanya lahat) specifically among warring political factions and politicians, “keeping things within their circle”. With that comes influence, clout, authority, power, control, machinery, network, etc. All theirs… That’s exactly our hypothesis from an earlier post (part 1), with the political alliance/dynasty being our case in point. There’s that insatiable desire for the continuity of dominance and the perks that go with it. Hence, the endowment of succession and certitude that it stays within rich err reach. Hence, the political unifications and dynasties. Whereas for the ordinary citizens, we get our minds conditioned and balled up by sweet talks and empty promises, thus, we entrust them that position. We vote for them. People are only against political dynasties or alliances when it’s from the other camp they’re similarly up against. Then, “kanya-kanya” becomes a battle of clout as to who gets the biggest share of the pie.

And by that, even among ordinary citizens, non-politicians and non-partisan groups supposedly, differing opinions and beliefs are ironically pushing more than boundaries but at the same time setting up boundary walls between opposing views and affiliations. Consequently, a good view is blocked by an obstruction of their own doing (read: a good point is simply ignored by one who’s from the other side). We put a barrier for any sensible point of view so as not to penetrate our senses, and more so, our pride or the lack of it. We have our respective parties for whom we throw our support through thick or thin (through bundle-thick or paper-thin denomination ~ in exchange for “the nomination?”), in silence or in the pounding of propagandas. This is expected from diehards, hardcores, blind loyalists, staunch supporters, paid trolls, and the politicians and candidates themselves. How about the people/the electorate they need to convince, more so, for the additional votes. A “numbers game” it has become. A number of supporters here and there, as well as “hear and their” ~ those behind it, seemingly the silent ones “we don’t hear” and their outspoken campaigners bombarding our ears… 

There are those who play it safe. There are those who ruffle the feathers. Quite backhanded, vaguely behind it is “hiya” in every sense of its polar definitions. Either “may hiya” or “walang hiya”, I mean think about it, our shyness or timidity make us yield to rather be apathetic or nonchalant perhaps. On the other hand “hiya” could also connote shamefulness or embarrassment when we’re too showy and loud for whatever publicity’s worth; may it be positive or negative. The silent ones do not mean they’re quiet. There are the anonymous or the turncoats. Then, there are the loud ones. Keyboard loud? Fictitious loud? Or amplified loud? It’s “Philip Salvador loud!” Particularly in today’s social media generation, detrimental and unverified posts serve its attention-seeking purpose. These implications going at each other, a free-for-all between Hypocrisy, Indifference, Yapping, Animosity, it spells “HIYA”. Which kind do you manifest? Detached or blatant? Withdrawn/reluctant? Or an instigator/agitator? May hiya o walang hiya? Why not make a stand instead? Stand in the middle, hold your ground and maintain balance…

Just a few or none at all stand to look at it from a wider perspective. Nowadays, amidst cancel-culture among the woke generation, that seems to be the case. One is either pro or anti, no in-between considerations as it could be deemed as weak and indecisive. Regardless of context, they’re confined and bounded by a one-sided narrative against the other story which they refuse to even give some thought to. Our loyalty should be for that of our country, city or where-have-you; not for one person, entity or faction. Just like those running for a legislative seat, their concern and elected mandate should be “in aid of legislation” not “in aid of one person or faction.” People are entitled and get easily upset, being self-important, especially when it comes to blatantly claiming their truth and authenticating their contention while robbing the other party of their integrity… Self-infected with a hero syndrome at the expense of their opposition’s dignity. Their posse, sidekicks and delusioned apologists as their demolition squad…

Just how do we even enable blind loyalty or factional fandom? Here are some:

• A well-oiled machinery gets it done.
• Investments on “donations” ensures a list of loyalists.
• Ayuda is indeed a favor-abler. 
• Solid backing. A network of supporters putting a good word adds up. Even negative publicity or controversy provides substantial attention… stalwarts to “star warts” (the dirty propagandists)
• But, so does a pretentious persona. “Plus+tick”: It’s a plus that ticks off
• By the same token, money has a mouthful to say, yes, it talks ~ and it’s such a ₱esonality, worthy as a “roll model” ~ yes, roll, as in it bankrolls the fans’ fare err fanfare.

“More Funds or More Fans in the Philippines” I guess, considering the 10M voter-fans of Philip Salvador. I suppose that’s how they understood the “Duter10” call. Or is it possible, given how Philip Salvador, more than a potential voice for the “taong bayan” in general and in the senate, but instead expressed himself the loudest at making their alliance-exclusive “Bring Him Home” battle cry be heard all over? Could that possibly mean only about 10M heard it and who actually wants FPRRD back home? Along with that “con-10-tion”, Jimmy Bondoc mounted around that 10M mark as well; that’s his “moun10”, Jimmy Mou10… And what do we know, here in mountainous Baguio, “It’s More Fans of the Philip Ipe S” as Salvador got 10K votes. Though it wasn’t “IPEktib”, he sure got some a-10-tion. It may sound substantial but 10M is just about 17% trust rating… The magic number this time though is “13” (for the 13M which even the last 2 placers, Lito Lapid and Imee Marcos, barely reached), a far cry from the usual 15M votes to get in the Magic 12. Does that mean there are more people who lost confidence in the political party/dynasty/alliance system, given the multiplicity of the Magic 12’s political affiliations?

Other than it’s a numbers game, allying and unifications are forms of positioning for political agenda’s worth. The recent midterm election’s result is a manifestation of how every alliance has orchestrated and established their respective clout chasing means. However, based on it (results), no political party or even dynasty or alliance has absolute public ascendancy. No more has complete control. No political bloc is as fully supported. No one is as solid! Except probably in Pasig, a considerable number of Pasigueños, in a straightforward (“straight” and forward-moving) manner, “naPASIGaw at nagPASIGla” with an overwhelming majority trust for the Giting Ng Pasig alliance, proving themselves to be indeed magiting against a well-funded organization albeit “di kaya” re: unqualified. Fact of the matter, a popular national sentiment even pointed out how lucky Pasig is because of how it’s governed… Coincidentally, a bailiwick where the senatorial vote-count was rather topped by the cousin of Philip Salvador’s ex whom he had a falling out with… If it’s possible in Pasig, why not anywhere else? As earlier cited (part 1), “there’s a sensible point for bureaucratic alliances if only for the right reasons.” Pasig, going on its third term, relied on Mayor Vico Sotto’s good governance. Good Governance has been dignified into an actual means of governing, simultaneously construed into a national brand of service.

Going back to Baguio, it’s the same expedient of good governance. What makes it different are the people, the residents, the citizens. A main proponent of the Good Governance stamp, its recourse and the alliance, Mayor Benjie Magalong has been entrusted his third and last term to once again administer good governance. However, Baguio’s Good Governance Alliance didn’t get the electorate’s full support. Similarly, there are those who’d resort to whatever means to discredit Mayor Magalong’s good governance. Truth be told, Baguio outsiders/visitors are more appreciative of Mayor Magalong’s brand of leadership. The same people who comprise an essential component of Baguio’s trade and commerce. That’s what makes it different from Pasig’s good governance. People there are more supportive, entrusting and most likely believers, simply “Vicos” of how Pasig has improved through good governance. Of course, the differing composition of the lineup is likewise a factor, as much as Pasig’s needs differ. But then, that’ll make it easier for the electorate to mix up their selection into wisely voting for deserving candidates to occupy seats best for public representation, whether for communal or for the marginalized. Again, not for the sake of one person/faction/political party, etc.

Baguio’s leading economic sectors are tourism and education which could be traced from the thriving hospitality service inclusive of the accommodation of students, a substantial constituent of the city’s population. These are Baguio’s economic engines. And these correlate as much as beneficially coexist with other fields: retail (vendors, suppliers, et al.), transportation, food and beverage, telecom, energy, finance, etc. Thus, in consideration of a system that’ll best fit for Baguio, the city needs a suitable program. Politically, it’s the same thing “Wisely” has been telling us all this time. It’s the same with how voting wisely means. We vote not because of our partiality towards a candidate or even a cause but we should vote based on a more communally beneficial reason. It takes a lot of pride-swallowing to vote for someone we don’t like but one who’s a better fit to lead or manage the overall program. In the same way, it’s “sacrificial” not to vote for a good candidate with all the good intentions but rather amiss about his take/would-be approach on how to possibly address issues contradictory to what’s needed and promising. Now going back to Baguio, more than showing if we indeed voted wisely, does it mean that the majority still believes in good governance? Most likely. And in all probability, more are hopeful of the much needed and promising programs.

~ We’ll talk about those programs next… ~