#cover m-t-mndrgn-taks-apoy-lucy-fer-against-the-state-an-1.png
#title Against the State and the Market, Push Back the Marcos-Duterte Axis of Evil!
#subtitle A Statement on the participation of some anarchists in the 2022 Elections
#author mndrgn, Taks Apoy, Lucy Fer
#SORTauthors mndrgn, Taks Apoy, Lucy Fer
#SORTtopics electoralism, Philippines
#date May 2022
#lang en
#pubdate 2022-05-02T05:53:40
#teaser In the photo from the foreground is former first lady Imelda Marcos, former president Gloria Arroyo, president Rodrigo Duterte and former president Erap Estrada at the Manila Hotel on April 19, 2017 (Image Source: luisteodoro.com)


Since the Philippine Assembly was established by the Americans in 1902,
the election has always been designed to be a playing field for local
political dynasties and local oligarchs. It was meant to keep the local
political dynasties on top of the power hierarchy, whilst the colonists
benefited in return. With the steady participation of a significant
number of voters from the masses, this field legitimizes the authority
of the wealthy and powerful until today.

To say the least, Philippine elections do not give enough agency to the
common people. The voters have no other option but to pick a
representative that would decide for them what is good and necessary in
the form of laws and policies that will be applied to them. Usually
these representatives are those who are wealthy and live very
differently from the masses so it’s very rare that they actually
represent the true interest of the regular citizen. Having said this, it
is easy to dismiss Philippine electoral politics as the playground of
the elite and thus useless to the common man.

For libertarians and anarchist groups, voter abstentionism is the usual
response to electoral politics. The election is a farce anyway so why
even engage in it at all? While this is a legitimate act of symbolic
protest, it is yet unproven how effective it is as a tactic. With the
steady and recently growing number of voters at each polls, especially
under the creeping authoritarian populism in the country today, voter
participation could make or break the defense of the meager democratic
safe spaces available to anarchists and other activists alike.

This text is a collaborative work that aims to examine the state of
electoral politics in the archipelago and the worsening populist
authoritarianism operating therein. Also, by discerning our different
positions from the positions of local anarchist milieus about the
upcoming national elections, the text also aims to initiate a discourse
on anarchist intervention in electoral politics and beyond.

*** The Philippine Electoral Politics

Electoral politics in the archipelago of the so-called Philippines is
personality-based and grounded upon money. Ever since it was
established, it has been the playground of landed elites and political
dynasties that push for their self-interest over the common good of the
people. Politicians must invest a huge sum of money for their campaigns
aiming to popularize their personal appeal to win the masses over. Not
having enough campaign money or campaign machinery reach can be grounds
for disqualification. It doesn’t matter whether they have a concrete
platform to offer or if their promises are all but empty. As long as
they stick to the formula, that is to capture the voters by popularity
and spectacular extravaganza, or vote buying, the win is almost always
guaranteed. Therefore, the Philippine election is usually a question of
who has the deepest pocket, who will most likely prioritize a return of
invested campaign funds upon winning, or who’s deepest in some
billionaire’s pocket and will therefore forward their (the
billionaire’s) interest over those of the populace. One way or the other
the common folk is fucked.

The irony here rests on the idea that the supposed representatives of
the masses seem to live in a totally different reality from their
constituents. This is especially true to the scions of political
families who have always lived affluent and comfortable lives totally
cut away from the poverty and daily struggle that millions of Filipinos
have to face.

Thus, for the cynical, it doesn’t matter who wins in the elections
because the results will always be the same anyway. The leaders cannot
represent the people being led. This holds true most of the time and is
thus a valid point. Sadly, even this cynicism towards electoral politics
still favors those who currently hold power.

Wealthy politicians, with their unquenchable thirst for more power and
their desire to preserve the status quo, actually benefit from the
abstentionism of critical citizens. In fact, if these politicians could
do away with elections and guarantee their stay in power without
spending a single dime for campaigns every 3–6 years, abolishing the
elections altogether would be in their interest and perhaps would be the
ultimate goal for the greediest of these wealthy politicians.

Fifty-one years ago, Ferdinand Marcos Sr. did exactly that. He shutdown
the institutions of “democracy” and centralized the decision-making
powers under a conjugal dictatorship with his wife Imelda that benefited
their allied oligarchs and cronies. Indeed, taking control of and
guaranteeing authority is convenient this way. No more political rivals
from the same wealthy class to keep you on guard. The great plunder was
unlimited until the Marcoses were deposed during the 1987 People Power
in EDSA. Yet, the impact of Marcos’ plunder is still felt until today.
And so the saying goes, nothing lasts forever but the consequences of
the Marcos plunder.

Now, post-EDSA politics promised a return to democracy and prosperity.
Yet, it appears that post-Marcos administrations were unable to deliver
such promises. The Presidential decrees (PD 2029 and 2030) signed by
Marcos which paved the way for the privatization of government-owned and
controlled companies, was only carried on by Aquino and the succeeding
administrations. After EDSA, the subsequent administrations continued to
prioritize neoliberal policies by privatizing public services such as
water, telco, and education, etc. Oil prices went out of hand as Oil
Deregulation became law in 1998.

In terms of education, it appears that the de-Marcosification of
Philippine society didn’t really occur. Marcos’ enablers like the
Enriles, Viratas, Benitezes, and also the Cojuangcos were never tried,
not to mention persecuted. The education system failed in educating the
next generation, even missing out on textbooks containing Marcos
propaganda.

Moreover, despite the electoral reforms initiated by civil society
organizations and the Church, we are back to where the cycle begins.
Today, the country still has P12 trillion of debt to pay. The Aquino
administration could have canceled the Marcos debt because a supposed
revolution already took place, but it chose to honor the dictator’s
agreement with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Middle class demography has declined and the lower class population
increased. The poverty and unemployment rate has skyrocketed
unproportionately. People were desperate.

Because of this, morality and education became their least priority.
This is a tendency which the middle class had the privilege of
criticizing, which led them to a sense of moral superiority.

*** Moral Superiority

For a democracy that is grounded upon the politics of money, winning the
elections is but a means to an end. It is a means for rivaling political
dynasties and their respective allied oligarchies to secure their share
of the great plundering. Philippine elections, seen this way, is nothing
more but a free market competition for kleptocrats – a process
consistent with neoliberalism.

As the money flows endlessly during election time, the economically
marginalized, desperate for whatever opportunities available, are an
easy target for exploitation. Wealthy politicians would prey upon the
largest voting population by making the poor perennially dependent with
voter-earned money during election time.

However, rather than understanding the roots of this predatory-prey
relation, the middle-class viewed the poor as evil and gullible. From
their moralistic perspective, it is the gullibility of the poor that is
causing this problem. Furthermore, the poor are blamed for the
frustrations of achieving the ideals of the upper and middle-class, that
is liberal democracy. This perspective pushes the poor to further
marginalization and de-politicization.

It is apt to use the term “moral superiority” to illustrate this
resentment of the middle-class towards the poor. And this *moral
superiority* of the resentful liberal ideology accompanied by neoliberal
economic policies has only pushed the poor towards the *crowd* of
populism.

Let us unpack the notion of the *crowd* to further grasp the meaning
behind a populism that is mediated by media technologies, and why the
marginalized are drawn into this.

Social historian Vicente Rafael in his cultural analysis of the
cellphone and the crowd — two important elements behind the people’s
uprising in 2001 (also known as EDSA 2 that ousted Estrada), argued that
the cellphone was not at all radical. Although it was a tool that helped
gather people, making EDSA 2 historical, he claimed that it was the
gathering of the crowd that made the potential for radicality. Rafael
defined the crowd here as a subjectivity that is devoid of any social
identity; because everyone else is the same as viewed from the
horizontal visual plane. And, its power lies; first, in the capacity to
overwhelm the imposed physical boundaries that define social identities;
and, lastly, it is a site that articulates its fantasies and circulates
messages. In this sense, Rafael further argued that the crowd is a kind
of medium and technology itself and not simply as an effect of
technological devices.

With that said, it is now easy to understand that the crowd — as a
medium and technology — can be a placeholder for a certain political
interest and can be utilized to depoliticize the other. The EDSA 2
uprising that was participated by a crowd which articulated a
middle-class political interest and fantasies that de-politicized the
poor is an example of this case.

The urban poor of Metro Manila has been perennially de-politicized by
neoliberal development and policies. At the time Estrada was ousted,
most of the poor didn’t have access to cellphones. The accessible media
technology available for them was only television, radio, and print.

The urban poor identify themselves with Joseph Estrada — a former action
star who is portrayed in movies as a hero to the downtrodden. Estrada
capitalized on this popular image to win the frustrations of the masses.
Eventually, this made him a president by a landslide in the 1998
elections. So, when the urban poor saw EDSA 2 on television and their
idol being mugshot for a criminal case of corruption, they have
identified the arrest of their idol to their experience of
de-politicization and incarceration. It escalated to anger and
eventually led to an uprising known as EDSA 3 to the surprise of
different spectrums of the Left. Although the uprising failed to bring
Estrada back to power, the urban poor crowd — seen by the middle-class
as an “apocalyptic crowd” — will manifest differently in the future.
Many factions of the elite, however, will harness this crowd for their
benefit leading to the emergence of authoritarian populism.

*** The Populist Turn Part 1

Predatory politicians saw the advantage of the populist turn for their
self-interest. They further develop it by expanding the populist crowd
to a multiclass mass base that now includes the emergent lower
middle-class who have their own brand of moral superiority, expressed
through the false reasoning that *poverty should not be an excuse for
drug addiction*. Later, this type of moral superiority will justify the
casualties of the bloody War on Drugs.

Furthermore, the usage of new media tools accessible to the emergent
lower middle-class and anti-elite stances (foul mouthing and slurs)
befitting the urban poor crowd, helped pave the way for a new populism
that is outrightly authoritarian. Youtube and Facebook’s lack of control
over unfiltered (fake) news has also helped fan the flames of this
emergent populism.

Rodrigo Duterte was a former Mayor and autocrat from Davao province. In
2016 he swept the presidential elections with his populist slogan
“Change is Coming!” This was a promise which also might have influenced
the mainstream Left to support his candidacy. Later, the mainstream Left
(National Democratic Movement), during Duterte’s first year of power,
was offered to join the cabinet in which they agreed to. The concession
made the Duterte government appear “progressive.”

But from his popularity and high approval ratings, mostly from the
die-hard supporters in the lower middle-class, Duterte started killing
and incarcerating suspected drug addicts in his War on Drugs, targeting
the poor. The death toll has amounted to at least 30,000 and still
counting. He devalued human rights, and became notorious for red-tagging
journalists and critics — including the mainstream Left who would be
discharged later on from the cabinet. He polarized the population,
attacked his rival oligarchies and political opponents only to give
favor to his own network of allied oligarchies and political clienteles.
He militarized the Filipino people in his approach to the Covid-19
pandemic. And, as usual, he plundered the country big time — the
Pharmally scam was just a tip of the iceberg. Note that since he assumed
power, he never opened his Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SALN) to
the public.

Duterte’s encompassing support from his die-hard mass base to political
clientele-patron networks and the military galvanized his seat to power.
Unlike his other populist predecessor — Erap Estrada, he was able to
quickly overcome the factions of the elite and its allied military men
that helped oust his populist predecessor from power.

Duterte’s publicity tactics were so successful that the term DDS, which
was originally known to stand for Davao Death Squad (his personal
paramilitary force in Davao as Mayor) was redefined and repopularized to
stand as a name for his Internet troll army — the Duterte Die-hard
Supporters. In cyber security, the DDS trolls fit in the category of
online threat actors who are known for engaging in *Hybrid Warfare*.
Their type of attacks in this sense were to diminish the credibility of
mainstream media with massive disinformation and cyber harassment to
journalists.

Now, it is said that the Marcoses were among the biggest
clientele-patrons for Rodrigo Duterte’s ascendancy to power. The
possibility of a hero’s burial at the *Libingan ng mga Bayani* (Cemetery
for Heroes) for the late dictator was believed to be among the realized
concessions of this clientele-patron relations between Marcos and
Duterte.

*** The Populist Turn Part 2: Marcoses Return to Power

Predatory politicians are devoid of ethical and honest principles. This
quality makes them erratic in their political alliances with
clientele-patrons. The only permanent thing for predatory politicians is
their commitment to greed and self-interest. This explains why most
members of the Congress shifted to Duterte’s party PDP-Laban when he
won. Also, this explains why the known Duterte enabler politicians such
as Ping Lacson, Tito Sotto, and Manny Pacquiao suddenly shifted to
becoming “oppositions” as the national elections grew near.

When the Marcoses decided to let Marcos Jr. run for presidency in the
coming 2022 national elections, the Dutertes supported it by making
concessions to have a tandem with Rodrigo Duterte’s daughter — Sara
Duterte. However, the Marcos-Duterte tandem is not new, as *Iglesia ni
Cristo* — a right-wing religious sect, had already campaigned and
pledged block-voting for the Rodrigo Duterte-Marcos Jr. tandem back in
2016.

Given the current state of political affairs having an allied fascist as
president, this is a favorable condition for the Marcos comeback. To
understand the context better, it is important to point out that the
Marcoses have already been planning to come back to power since they
were deposed in the 1986 People Power (also known as EDSA 1).

In an investigative report by Rappler, there was an attempt in the early
90s by Imelda Marcos to run for president under the graces of her
husband’s party, the *Kilusang Bagong Lipunan* party. She got only 15%
of the votes, tying for fifth place with Senator Jovito Salonga.[1]
However, later on with their persistence, the Marcoses will get the
gubernatorial, congressional, and senatorial seats.

Using the bulk of ill-gotten wealth they took from the Filipino people,
it is not impossible for the Marcoses to achieve this. Even though part
of this money, amounting to $650 million, has already been confirmed as
ill-gotten by the Philippine Supreme Court in 2003, since the amount is
double the legitimate income they have earned during the time, billions
of US dollars are said to be still under their possession through
undeclared Swiss bank accounts and real estate property in the US.[2]

The unclaimed ill-gotten money that is in the hands of the Marcoses is
believed to be funding their return to power. Part of this money could
be funding the networked propaganda online. The investment in networked
propaganda by the Marcoses is highly sophisticated. Their social
engineering infrastructure is effective enough to instill a revisionist
history popularizing a Marcos cult of personality among the
de-politicized crowd.

In a research team headed by Gemma Bagayauwa-Mendoza, they have
uncovered a large number of social media accounts and pages mostly from
Facebook and Youtube. From these giant social media platforms, the
Marcos networked propaganda thrives. The usual content they peddle is
the glorification of the Marcos dictatorship, erasing its human rights
atrocities and replacing it with a conspiracy theory favorite to many —
the *Tallano* gold and *Maharlika* kingdom — linking it to the
popularization of the Marcos cult of personality. Most of the user
accounts peddling these contents, according to the research team, were
created in 2010 and peaked during the years leading towards the 2016
elections[3]. Until today it kept on expanding and with the help of
known influencers, the amplification was ramped up in time for the
Marcos Jr. electoral campaign.

Curious as to why the Marcos disinformation campaign and historical
revisionist contents were effective and popular among the targeted
crowd, sociologist Arnold Alamon from the Mindanao State
University-Iligan Institute of Technology has conducted a study. From
the study, Alamon claimed that, “You can see parallelisms in the way
people embrace certain half-truths, lies, or even outright false
information because it makes sense to them; because it gives meaning to
their reality.”[4] Given the hopeless state of reality we are in, it is
indeed convincing to believe in the false idea that the Philippines was
once a “revered country” under the Marcoses. This false yet hopeful
reality makes sense to the victims of disinformation because it gives
hope and meaning to their frustrations against the present dismal
condition.

The dependents of Marcos networked propaganda are mostly coming from a
generation that experienced the failed promises of post-Marcos EDSA.
These are the social classes and generations that strongly felt
de-politicization caused by liberalism and its neoliberal economic
policies that thrived continuously since the Marcos dictatorship until
the post-Marcos regimes. Many of them were Estrada supporters and later
would also become Duterte supporters. And, true indeed, as claimed by
the sociologist Walden Bello, “What destroyed the EDSA project and paved
the way for Duterte was the deadly combination of an elite monopoly of
the electoral system and neoliberal economic policies with the priority
placed on foreign debt repayment imposed by Washington.”[5]

It is the elitism of Philippine politics backed by neoliberalism that
pushed the poor masses to further marginalization, and ironically it is
the same elitism from the factions of the wealthy that are exploiting
the frustrations of the poor. The weaponization of the Internet and the
altering of history are exemplary to such exploitation to achieve the
greedy ends of wealthy politician families at the expense of the poor
masses.

Thus, the Marcos-Duterte tandem, as Imee Marcos has claimed, is indeed,
“…a match made in heaven. The Marcoses control the North and the
Duterte’s control the South.”[6] Together with the unity of plunderers
rallying behind them (Estrada, Arroyo, Enrile, Revilla, etc.), the
ordinary people’s lives and everybody’s future is at stake. This context
is what makes the desire to defeat them in the upcoming elections so
important.

However, given the state of Philippine electoral politics and the
dystopian situation we are facing today, how do the progressive groups
intervene? Particularly the libertarian and anarchist groups, how will
they push back the impending threat to our lives and future? How are we
going to keep our friends and loved ones safe from impunity favored by
the Marcos-Duterte tandem? Will the usual voter abstentionism make an
impact? And, how will direct action play a role in this context?

*** Anarchist Electoral Discourse

Anarchists from around the world are very much opposed to state
elections. Local anarchists in the country are nothing different.
Anarchists see voting as a political practice that should not be
encouraged. The argument behind this is simply because representative
democracy is a farce. Voters do not have any real agency, and the masses
are only given a limited choice to elect personalities rather than
engage with decisions that affect daily life.

Alternatively, anarchists see *direct action* as the best method to get
things done. Direct action refers to bypassing the middle-men and
institutions like the state. To understand clearly what direct action
means, let us break down the meaning of politics. Politics is nothing
but decision-making. However, politics is a special kind of
decision-making because one decides together with the
consensus/dissensus of the other. But, depending upon the manner of how
everyone arrived at a decision is a question of the political model. So,
what types of political models are available? Well, there are many and
the choices depend on one’s ideological belief. For example, if everyone
decided in a non-hierarchical way, then it’s a libertarian type of
political model. The political model in this example is a libertarian
type of direct action. Thus, compared to the politics of representative
democracy expressed by state elections — an ideological domain of
liberal democracy, the liberatarian direct action is far better. But, it
is usually only effective when the decision-making units are small and
decentralized.

Setting up a community food pantries for everyone to share, DIY coverage
of important news, and taking care of each other when the state social
welfare is absent; all of these require decision-making that is
effectively best with the application of libertarian direct action.
Direct action in a sense proves, and sometimes assumes, the call for the
obsoleteness of state institutions and authorities that decide over us.

The anarchist groups from the Local Autonomous Network (LAN) were the
first to initiate a direct action against electoral politics in the form
of anti-elections campaigning. Although, in the past this campaign was a
prominent part of the mainstream Left during the dictator-initiated snap
elections — the *Kilusang Boycott* of the 80s comes to mind.[7]
Nowadays, it is the local anarchist groups that occupy this campaign.
The campaign slogans, however, are similar with those anarchists from
North America like, “We won’t sign them a blank cheque,” and “Our dreams
will never fit in their ballot boxes.” LAN’s intensive campaigning
against elections has reached most comrades in the cities and provinces.
In the form of articles in books like *BOBOto ba ako?*(2016) and zines
like *Dis-elect*(2016), and also, a podcast by *Tagay Collective* in
2019, they talked intensively about voter abstentionism as the core
action behind their anti-elections campaign.

From the campaigning, the impact seems not to be gaining any weight. The
voters still remain within the accepted number. Given that condition,
LAN refuses to rethink their position or initiate a discourse to subvert
electoral politics in another way and or influence the voters. On the
contrary, some of them would simply brush off their shoulders and say
that their anti-election efforts should be kept the same, which is to
intervene with electoral politics symbolically through voter abstention.
It is frustrating to see that LAN keeps the dogma of voter
abstentionism.

Recently, despite the Covid-19 situation, the turnout of registered
voters according to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) was expected
to exceed the previous polls.[8] And, surprisingly, the largest
registered voter demographic by age is coming from the young population,
who were previously suspected of being apathetic. The big turnout of
young voters is historic and if combined with other voters, they can
either push us back to the dark ages or keep our safe spaces to sustain
our struggle for a hopeful future.

For the similar reason above, many anarchists in North America do not
see voter abstention as an absolute response to elections. For instance,
the campaigns in the US and Canada like the, “Don’t Just Vote — get
active!” and “PunkVoter,” although both are not mutually exclusive,
these campaigns do not necessarily lead to abstentionism, although they
view it as a legitimate decision. What’s clear is that these movements
say that voting is not the highest point of political action[9].

Another anarchist milieu that calls themselves the second milieu and
represented by the distro *Bandilang Itim* (BI) — translated as black
flag, has published a text just in time for the upcoming elections.
Titled *“Theses on Halalan 2022”* and signed collectively as
konTRAPOlitiko; the text, as they claim, is a collective expression of
anger against politicians. This anger is expressed in an anthology of
insights towards the elections.

To summarize, the anthology acknowledges the Marcos-Duterte tandem as a
real threat. But, at the same time it also acknowledges that attacking
the threat only gains sympathy to the threat actor. It also claimed that
the Leni-Kiko opposition is a trick to revert back to the pre-Duterte
liberalism (also known as the Righteous Path) to keep the neoliberal
status quo, which had de-politicized the poor crowd pushing them to
populism in the first place.

Moreover, while the anthology implied that the mainstream Left was
already bankrupt, the vitality of the alternative left in the initiative
to intervene with electoral politics on the other hand is seen as
suspect. Although they are pessimistic about the alternative left
winning the elections — due to the Leody-Walden campaign not being
popular enough, they still see its participation as a threat to social
movements losing agency in case it wins state power, reminiscent of the
experiences in Latin America.

The anthology concluded without offering any hope but to let the dismal
condition accelerate until the “state’s antagonism […] become
increasingly untenable.”[10] And only this way, it further concluded
that, the solidarity between the de-politicized “ambiguous others” will
finally stand united in enacting radical change.

The accelerationist conclusion of konTRAPOlitiko in regards to the
frustration and disenchantment with politicians expressed in the
anthology resonates with the similar frustrations expressed in the
antipolitics[11] of right-wing extremists. The only difference, however,
is that the transgression of right-wing antipolitics against politicians
and the state is expressed in the call for the substitution of politics
with economy, making democracy less valuable than the market. And this
is precisely what the Marcos-Duterte tandem is veering towards — to
devalue democracy and the rule of law in favor of the market and their
self-interest. If we allow this to happen, the state will no longer be
accountable for any atrocities because the impunity will shift to market
violence. And given the fact that the climate temperature continues to
rise, the untenability of market violence will only lead us to planetary
destruction and our eventual extinction.

*** Push Back and Stand Our Ground Now!

Against the market and the state, one has to demand the impossible. We
need to push back the Marcos-Duterte “axis of evil.”[12] There’s no
other time for such demand but now! Especially when politicians who have
been found guilty of stealing from the public coffers are colluding with
each other in the guise of national unity. Never has it been clearer
that we are being ruled by the very enemies of the people than now, when
they themselves chose to stand side by side, united in their common
interest to deceive the people even further.

How do we as anarchists respond to this? We, the authors, suggest that
in parallel with direct action initiatives that are already happening on
the ground, we should also participate in the 2022 elections to reject
the biggest threat yet to our life and freedom.

However, let it be clear that our participation does not mean that we
believe that the elections will solve all our problems. Also, we are
aware that there is nothing radical with our chosen tactic. We only say
that this particular election is very crucial in securing that we can
push back populist authoritarianism in the country and stand our ground
to defend the meager safe spaces available to us. With the existing
choices of candidates who we believe we can ally with, it is possible to
push back the impending threat if only to give us more breathing space
to continue conducting direct action initiatives. That is why despite
decades of voter abstention, we choose to participate now. This decision
should not stop us from aspiring for a more anarchistic future or stop
us in engaging in more prefigurative practices of politics within our
immediate communities.

In this light, though, we would like to be clear with one thing. We
would like to call out so-called “punks” and “anarchists” who support
the fascist candidates. It is true that they have the freedom to support
any candidate, but we view support for fascists as a failure of
discourse within the anarchist circles. We detest them of their misuse
of choice even though some comrades claim that we should respect them in
the name of diversity. No, we do not compromise in the face of fascism.
Because, as we know, fascism given enough resources destroys diversity.
No, we are not friends with fascists!

With that said, our participation in the coming elections does not put
our hopes entirely on the politicians. There is no illusion with
electoral politics but a tactical move to stand our ground from the
impending challenge of fascism, and at the same time take advantage of
the electoral platform to articulate together with the de-politicized
masses the demand for a better life and anti-authoritarian future. Even
if our chosen candidates win, that should not stop us from criticizing
politicians and their decisions that affect us everyday — they are
public servants anyway and it’s apt to hold them accountable. Also, it
would be ideal to see the political rigor that we see now in people
during the electoral campaigns to continue even after the elections have
ended. We’d like to see participation not just on May 9<sup>th</sup> but also
everyday, every year, in every issue. And, yes we love to extend this
vitality in parallel with our direct action initiatives to push back
further the fascists and advance the struggle for equality, freedom,
justice, and the preservation of our planet.

Now, we would like to highlight that we, the authors, do not necessarily
agree among ourselves which particular candidate to support, as some of
us gear towards more principled labor leaders and environmentalists from
the alternative left. While some of us, as a defined tactic, prefer a
candidate who is more experienced in public-service (not necessarily in
politicking), who is also more popular and viable to go against the
biggest enemy. Despite the difference, we stand in solidarity with each
other to push back the impending threat to our freedom and life.

If we are to push back the Marcos-Duterte tandem in the polls, the
voters’ choice should only just be either Leni-Kiko or Leody-Walden. We
can not go with the other candidates who were enablers of the Duterte
regime of impunity. We can only support those who were vocal against the
return of dictatorship from the beginning and those who could go beyond
just defeating the Marcos-Duterte tandem.

We hold ourselves responsible for whatever result these actions may
cause. However, those who do not wish to participate shouldn’t also be
in the illusion that they are free from the burden. Because, those who
abstain are complicit. Furthermore, despite our non-participation in the
practice of elections, all of us pay taxes everyday anyway. With or
without our consent we pay taxes everytime we buy our basic needs and
luxuries in the form of extended value added tax (EVAT). Even if we
don’t vote, we still legitimize the state by paying taxes nonetheless.
The tax we pay is people’s money that may be used for either public
services or atrocities. We would rather choose who we give our money to
than just stand aside and let populism give this position to fascist
rulers. In that way, we also do not “sign blank cheques.”

Considering the on-going tax-trap, if anarchists are open to engage in a
productive discourse to reframe our mindset towards electoral politics,
we would like to synthesize our position with that of the voter
abstentionism by LAN and the radical cynicism of konTRAPOlitiko. And we
suggest that we explore the call to boycott or abolish the paying of
taxes. Because the abolishing of paying taxes will provide a more felt
result than symbolic voter abstention and theoretical transgressions.
Societal asceticism, even apathy, is an illusion in a tax-paying
society. Neither is an autonomous life, especially if our money is used
for abuse and we choose to back off from that truth.

As a closing statement, we would like to reiterate that we, the authors,
are only united in the perspective that the impending threat to our
freedom and life (represented by Marcos-Duterte tandem) should be pushed
back, hence our tactical decision to participate in the 2022 elections.
We agree that the political situation in the archipelago is crucial and
does not only affect us, but also how the world views politics in
general, and that dictators and free-people alike are watching.

We are thankful that anarchism provides the space for us to speak out
about what we deem is tactical and practical. We hope that anarchists
elsewhere consider the validity of our stand in relation to the context
we are in. We thank you for patiently reading our analysis and our
stand. As much as anarchist comrades can criticize us, we can also
observe them. Because to us, 2022 is also a test for anarchists in the
archipelago: will we stay true to the traditions of abstention of the
global anarchist groups, or will we participate in an election, which
may be statist in essence, but is crucial nonetheless in the defense of
activism, freedom, and life?

*** References

<biblio>

Abinales, Patricio Ed. *“The Revolution Falters: The Left in Philippine
Politics after 1986”*, Cornell University Press: New York, 1996,
Paperback.

Coleman, Gabriella. *“Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces
of Anonymous.”* Verso: London, 2015. Paperback

Cruz-Lucero, Rosario. *“A Human Right”* in *Manila Noir* ed. Zafra,
Akashic: New York, 2013. Pp 28–44

Graeber, David. *“Direct Action: An Ethnography.”* AK Press: Chicago,
2009. Paperback

Kusaka, Wataru. “*Moral Politics in the Philippines: Inequality,
Democracy and the Urban Poor.”* Singapore University Press: Singapore,
2017. Paperback

Rafael, Vicente. *“The Cellphone and the Crowd: Messianic Politics in
the EDSA II Uprising.”* Motherless Tongues: The Insurgency of Language
Amid Wars of Translation, Ateneo de Manila University Press: QC, 2016,
Pp. 70–96

Ross Beveridge, David Featherstone. *“Introduction: Anti-politics,
austerity and spaces of politicization”* Volume: 39 issue: 3, page(s):
437–450, Article first published online: April 8, 2021; Issue published:
May 1, 2021
[[http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23996544211004188][journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23996544211004188]]

konTRAPOlitiko. *“Theses on Halalan 2022.”* Date retrieved: April 15,
2022, Source:
[[http://bandilangitim.xyz/library/kontrapolitiko-theses-on-halalan-2022-en][bandilangitim.xyz/library/kontrapolitiko-theses-on-halalan-2022-en]]

*“What is Punkvoter.”* *PunkVoter.com,* Date retrieved: April 15, 2022,
Source:
[[http://www.punkvoter.com/about/about.html#whatispunk][<verbatim>punkvoter.com/about/about.html#whatispunk</verbatim>]]

Crimethinc. *Don’t Just Vote — get active!,* 2004.
[[http://cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/zines/dont-just-vote-get-active/dont-just-vote-get-active_screen_single_page_view.pdf][cdn.crimethinc.com/assets/zines/dont-just-vote-get-active/dont-just-vote-get-active_screen_single_page_view.pdf]].
Pamphlet

</biblio>

[1] See Mendoza, Gemma. *Networked propaganda: How the Marcoses are
    using social media to reclaim Malacañang, rappler.com*, Date: 20
    November 2019, Source:
    [[http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/245290-marcos-networked-propaganda-social-media/][rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/245290-marcos-networked-propaganda-social-media]]

[2] See Rappler.com, *FALSE: Wealth of Marcos family from ‘hard work,’
    and ‘not from public funds’* Date: 30 September 2019, Source:
    [[http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/fact-check/240528-wealth-marcos-family-accumulated-filipino-taxes/][rappler.com/newsbreak/fact-check/240528-wealth-marcos-family-accumulated-filipino-taxes/]]

[3] See Bagayauwa-Mendoza, Gemma. *Deep dive into the Marcos networked
    propaganda, rappler.com,* Date: 18 February 2020, Source:
    [[http://r3.rappler.com/move-ph/plus/252085-members-briefing-marcos-networked-propaganda][r3.rappler.com/move-ph/plus/252085-members-briefing-marcos-networked-propaganda]]

[4] See Tantuco, Vernise. *YouTube networks spread propaganda on
    Marcoses, Martial Law – study, rappler.com.* Date: 7 December 2021,
    Source:
    [[http://www.rappler.com/technology/social-media/study-says-youtube-networks-spread-propaganda-marcos-martial-law/][rappler.com/technology/social-media/study-says-youtube-networks-spread-propaganda-marcos-martial-law]]

[5] See Bello, Walden. *Rodrigo Duterte: A Fascist Original, fpif.org.*
    Date: 6 January 2017, Source:
    [[http://fpif.org/rodrigo-duterte-fascist-original/][fpif.org/rodrigo-duterte-fascist-original]]

[6] Quoted directly from Walden Bello’s speech at the people’s
    proclamation rally of the Leody-Walden tandem, titled *“Towards a
    Socialist and Democratic Future”* Date: 30 November 2021

[7] See Hedman, Eva-Lotta E. “BEYOND BOYCOTT: THE PHILIPPINE LEFT AND
    ELECTORAL POLITICS AFTER 1986.” *The Revolution Falters: The Left in
    Philippine Politics after 1986,* edited by Patricio N. Abinales, 1<sup>st</sup>
    ed., Cornell University Press, 1996, pp. 83–109,
    [[http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1tqx6x1.7][jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1tqx6x1.7]].
    Accessed 22 Apr. 2022.

[8] See Baclig, Cristina Eloisa. *By the numbers: More voters in 2022
    than in previous polls, newsinfo.inquirer.net,* Date: 7 April 2022,
    Source:
    [[http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1579736/by-the-numbers-more-voters-in-2022-than-in-previous-polls][newsinfo.inquirer.net/1579736/by-the-numbers-more-voters-in-2022-than-in-previous-polls]]

[9] See Lakoff, Aron. *The Case For An Anarchist Approach To Electoral
    Politics, readpassage.com,* Date: 13 September 2021, Source:
    [[http://readpassage.com/the-case-for-an-anarchist-approach-to-electoral-politics/][eadpassage.com/the-case-for-an-anarchist-approach-to-electoral-politics/]]

[10] See KonTRAPOlitiko. *Thesis 19: We need not a “unified opposition,”
     we need autonomous struggle, “Theses on Halalan 2022”,
     bandilangitim.xyz*. Date: 22 March 2022, Source:
     [[http://bandilangitim.xyz/library/kontrapolitiko-theses-on-halalan-2022-en][bandilangitim.xyz/library/kontrapolitiko-theses-on-halalan-2022-en]]

[11] Antipolitics is a terminology that was first coined in 1990 by the
     anthropologist James Ferguson in his study of development projects
     that mostly de-politicized the subjects of development in the Third
     World. To Ferguson, “development apparatuses” were post-second
     world war extensions of colonial rule; and alternately this
     apparatus is termed by Ferguson as an anti-politics machine.

     The term antipolitics, later on, became a currency in the
     scholarship on the de-politicization and politicization of
     austerity. And today it is popularly used in capturing the
     perceived ills of liberal democracies, also a key concept to
     examine – most typically – political disenchantment and mistrust of
     politicians from both the right-wing and left-wing political
     spectrum. See Beveridge and Featherstone. *Introduction:
     Anti-politics, austerity and spaces of politicization,
     journals.sagepub.com.* Date: 8 April 2021, Source:
     [[http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23996544211004188][journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23996544211004188]]

[12] A term borrowed from Walden Bello describing the team-up of
     convicted plunderers in Philippine politics. See Smith, Ashley.
     *Taking on the Philippine axis of evil: An interview with Walden
     Bello.* Date: 10 February 2022, Source:
     [[http://links.org.au/taking-on-the-philippines-axis-of-evil-interview-with-walden-bello][links.org.au/taking-on-the-philippines-axis-of-evil-interview-with-walden-bello]]