[ANALYSIS] ANYARE, RISA?: HOW HONTIVEROS LOST

"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 6^th 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

[ANALYSIS] HOW NANCY BINAY WON A SENATE SEAT

She’s the one who took a ride on her father’s popularity during campaign season. With her unfit educational background and bare political experience, we were quick to draw conclusions on how out of shape she is to become a senator of the republic. We lambasted her for her total absence in senatorial debates, questioned the cliches in her platform, ridiculed her intelligence and experience by pitting her against Risa Hontiveros, and teased her dark brown complexion.

As of writing, in 5^th place: Nancy Binay: 5,436,011 votes! (8:53 PM)

Early on in this race, it looks as if the woman we all hated will win a Senate seat much to our dismay. Soon, we will be scratching our heads and crying “Anyare?” (“What happened?”) How is it possible that the very person we all hated could likely win in this election?

As film director Maryo J. De Los Reyes said in an interview with ABS-CBN’s “Ang Tipo Kong Kandidato”, Filipinos have a penchant for drama. As in the soap operas we are hooked into every afternoon and on prime time, we tend to sympathize with the underdog—the oppressed and maligned character, usually from poor background and physical attributes.  Over the years, election candidates and their managers have learned to utilize this flaw in the Filipino psyche resulting in a type of social engineering we see every election season.

Turn a candidate into an underdog and s/he will have the sympathy vote s/he needs.

This is one trap most of us fell into early on in this election season. After all, there is another flaw in the Filipino psyche utilized by these candidates and their handlers—our penchant for criticism or (in Filipino) “pamumuna, pamumulà”. And the demographic most guilty of this crime against Nancy Binay during this election season are those belonging in classes A, B, and C or those from the educated, tech-savvy upper and middle classes that make up 7% of our society. From the day Binay announced her candidacy and campaign, this demographic was on the attack both in mainstream broadcast media and in emerging yet powerful social media.

Facebook and Twitter were the main platforms of cyber bullies against her, most notably through the use of parody accounts @IamNancyBinay and @DonyaAngelica (based on Angelica Santibañez, the famed and hated antagonist from the soap opera “Marimar” in the 90s). These two parody accounts were basically hook and sinker which baited us into the type of drama Binay’s handlers were expecting—to draw and encourage a large, educated demographic to push Binay to the ground. Some well known figures, such as comedian Vice Ganda, and even Liberal Party senatorial candidate and former Akbayan partylist representative Risa Hontiveros, joined the bandwagon—a step, I bet, she’d later regret.

As of writing, in 5^th place, Nancy Binay: 7,874,404 votes! (10:18 PM)

Just one of the many racial slurs against Nancy Binay.

Back in 2010, Vice President Jejomar Binay got the most votes from that other demographic of our society who can relate the most to soap operas: the uneducated masses from classes D and E or a whopping 93% of our society. They are the ones who have less access to social media or the Internet and rely only on TV, radio, print media, and campaign sorties itself to get to know a candidate. They aren't the ones who frequent Twitter or Facebook and see Nancy Binay being bullied, but they know very well what is happening there from word-of-mouth. Hence, it is no wonder she would get the sympathy vote from this sector just three years since her father won.

The masses related a lot to Nancy’s father: from his complexion, to his platform, down to his bearing and approach during campaign season. Being a vice presidential candidate, the elder Binay did show he was competent enough to do the bigger job by attending debates and granting interviews. After all, he has bullets to spare from his experience as Makati mayor. In the interest of expanding his political clout in preparation for 2016 Presidential Elections, VP Binay gambled that his strategy in 2010 would work for her inexperienced daughter. Before she was picked, we virtually heard nothing of Nancy Binay. If not for her complexion, people wouldn't believe that she’s related to the vice chief executive. This is the only characteristic father and daughter share and in order to win, the former would let the latter ride on his popularity and devise a strategy to win: to turn her daughter into an underdog in order to get the sympathy vote she needs.

Risa and Senyora: Alter-egos?

We never knew (and dared to inquire) who are these people behind the parody accounts against Nancy Binay. It could be her handlers or non-affiliated sympathizers  Or maybe it was indeed created by some savvy tweep disgruntled by Binay’s inclusion in the race. We will never know the truth behind it. Only one truth remains—the more the upper and middle classes bullied Nancy Binay, the more it endeared her to the lower classes. With every slur against her color and inexperience, it was a swipe against the lower classes. By turning Nancy Binay into the enemy, you turned against someone who is with the masses.

As of writing, in 5^th place, Nancy Binay: 8,594,831 votes! (11:10 PM)

It was a mistake bullying Nancy Binay no matter how legitimate our issues are against her. Now, with the inevitable about to happen, we just have to accept the fact that our own actions helped put a novice in public service. As of writing, there are sentiments in Twitter and Facebook about continuing the smear campaign against her in Senate. It wouldn't help in anyway as it would only solidify VP Binay and his family’s foothold in the presidency in 2016. What is the least we could do?

There are two things we can do: one, we can hold her accountable for her election promises by closely watching and criticizing her legislative work or we can encourage and help her accomplish the gargantuan task that awaits her novice hands. After all, she is an elected official and part of being in a democracy is accepting the results of democratic exercise. If we turn her into the senator we expect her to be, she could transform into the compelling legislator we don’t expect her to be. TSS

Please follow my blog via Google Friend Connect or via its Facebook page: The Social Scientist

Photos courtesy of Yahoo! Philippines, Liberal Party website, and Twitter.