"L" stands for loser? |
We cheered for her when she stood
her ground for the RH Bill. We gave our loudest hurrahs during her appearances
and statements in various debates. We flooded Twitter and Facebook with status
updates, memes, infographics, posters, and tweets, all with the same battle
cry: “Risa Hontiveros for Senator!”
Now, the same crying mouths are
left gaping, with hands above heads scratching. In Filipino, “nganga!”
Soon, our denial turned in anger,
with many posting rants in social media, lamenting the irony of “stupid”
candidates winning and “intelligent, upright” candidates losing. Did the
electorate do something wrong or is it a lapse in judgment on the part of the
candidate and her handlers? If you’re the type of person who is quick to judge a
candidate and his/her voters as “stupid”, clearly there is something wrong in
your judgment.
If Risa Hontiveros haven’t
learned from the past, that lesson is “repeating the same mistake.” From
the beginning of the campaign, she got a lot of factors wrong. Her entire
packaging—from the fashion sense down to the image she portrayed—it’s all
reflective of 2010.
FASHION FAUX PAS
From that year when she first
lost, nothing has changed in her attire. She still wears that classy, yellow
blouse reminiscent of the traditional attire balintawak. Add to that the signature purple shawl or alampay which baffled most of us until
they found somewhat of a use for it—as a sling-like contraption to “take out” corruption
and poverty.
93% of our electorate comes from
poor, usually less educated masses, and obviously, it’s very rare for them to
wear a garment reminiscent of the balintawak
or even an alampay. These masses,
dubbed as class D and E by survey firms, can relate more to candidates who
dress like them either in plain t-shirts or polo shirts, and jeans. If you can
even wear slippers or sandals during your campaign, much better.
Hontiveros' fashion sense did not change since 2010. |
If Hontiveros could have taken a
page from a team mate’s book, it should’ve been Sonny Angara. Just look at him
during the last leg of Team PNoy’s nationwide campaign. He wore a yellow camisa chino or loose shirt commonly
worn by farmers. That shirt sent the message that this guy is pro-farmer and
pro-masses. Look at him now; he’s trailblazing at 6th place!
And to strike closer to home,
just look at Nancy Binay—the bullied candidate which most of her supporters
pitted against her. In all her sorties, Binay usually wore a plain t-shirt or
polo shirt with UNA’s signature color orange. You now know how her attire made
a difference in the election.
SINGLE MESSAGE FLOP
Never mind the attire and focus
on the message: Yes, her handlers and supporters portrayed her as a tough,
determined, no holds barred activist ready to take on issues such as corruption,
poverty, discrimination, and women’s rights. The message is good, clear, and
even concise but this has always been her message even in 2010. The masses have
heard this before. What they need to know is what else can she do for us? What
else can she transform into?
If her handlers packaged her as a
multi-faceted candidate such as a mother (like Nancy Binay), a good daughter
(like Grace Poe), or an entrepreneur (like Cynthia Villar), she would have
appealed to the masses even more. And instead on focusing her platforms on
issues closer to her heart such as
women’s rights and RH Bill, she should have shown the electorate her plans of
tackling issues closer to the masses’ heart like food, poverty alleviation, jobs,
housing, health, and the likes. [1]
IMAGE GONE WRONG
Another important factor
Hontiveros and her campaign managers got wrong is the image. To tickle the
electorate, one must present the image that you are “for the masses and with
the masses”. But didn’t she do just that when she came out with President
Aquino last year during the aftermath of Typhoon Gener, giving out relief goods
to flooded residents around the Metro Manila? Yes. But it wasn’t election
season yet and it was misconstrued by the masses as electioneering or as they
would have it in Filipino, “umeepal”. [2] What could have been an
alternative is for President Aquino to appoint her as secretary of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or even the Commission on
Human Rights so she can have a legitimate reason to be with the masses and in a
national scale.
Unfortunately, instead of
compensating for her somewhat absence in masa
events such as provincial sorties, Hontiveros focused on reinforcing her
strong-willed and intellectual image by attending more debates—10 in all, the highest
attendance among Team PNoy candidates. This is not bad if you’re attracting the
intellectual and educated classes A, B, and C or a miniscule 7% of the
electorate. Even if this percentage all troop to Facebook and Twitter
proclaiming how eloquent she is in her command of English while elaborately
answering all debate questions, this wouldn’t matter to a whopping 93% masses
who have no access to the Internet and have little penchant for televised debates.[3] She would’ve fared better too if she didn’t join the
bandwagon of Nancy Binay bullies. [4][5]
At the end of the day, your intellect
and stand in various issues is not as important as what you can do for a
hungry and deprived electorate. Unless, of course, if you are Miriam
Defensor-Santiago, who won in 2010 for her command of the vernacular.
A DIVIDED LEFT
But what destroyed Hontiveros’ campaign this year is what killed it in 2010: the rift between two sides of the Left movement, Social Democrats (SocDems) and National Democrats (NatDems). In layman’s terms—Akbayan and Makabayan coalitions. Their rivalry, rooted in their ideological differences during the post-Martial Law era, became hot in the House of Representatives in 1998 and came to a boiling point last year when Akbayan allied itself with President Aquino.
Makabayan’s questioning of
Akbayan’s party list status and the subsequent brawl of its representatives at
a restaurant in Malate proved disastrous for both the Hontiveros and Teddy
Casiño campaign. [6] Not only did it widen the gap between two sides
of the Left Movement, it also publicized both party’s ugly tendencies and (by
impulse) reminded the masses of their earlier connections with the New People’s
Army.
If only Akbayan and Makabayan temporarily
placed their ideological differences in the backburner and work together
towards a common end, we would have more socialists in the Senate by now.
EPILOGUE
There are other factors I have
failed to elaborate such as Hontiveros’ stand on RH Bill and her failure to get Iglesia ni Cristo’s endorsement. [7] But I think the factors I mentioned
are enough to convince you why she lost.
Nevertheless, Hontiveros is not a
lost cause. I’m sure PNoy could find some good use for her in time for 2016 if
ever she still wants to run for Senate. And given that she learns all her
election campaign lessons and change her strategy by then, maybe—just maybe—she
could finally clinch that elusive seat. But the House of Representatives, where
she first shined and made a name for herself, is also not a bad place to come
home to. If ever she decides to run again, she won’t be without convinced
voters. TSS
Please follow my blog via Google
Friend Connect or follow it on Facebook: The Social Scientist