Two years from now, we will again have that familiar national spectacle: the elections. As early as today, we are already seeing politically weighted posts starting to appear on social media platforms.

Elections transform our country into a vibrant, chaotic theatre. In addition to candidates flooding digital platforms with catchy slogans, there will be the usual colorful streamers crisscrossing streets, catchy jingles blaring from roving jeepneys, and the air thick with the promises of salvation and “Gobyernong Tapat.”

Yet, beneath the festive surface of Philippine elections lies a stark, often heartbreaking reality: a democratic process tethered to the whims of wealth, the weight of dynasties, and the practice of patronage. These forces often overshadow merit, competence, and genuine public service, leaving voters with choices shaped less by vision and more by survival. And we are suffering the consequences to this day.

To understand why we are in this situation, one must look at the structural poverty that defines the general Filipino experience. In the Philippines, some of its citizens view the state as an abstract entity that often fails to meet their basic needs, provide social safety nets, or offer immediate relief in emergencies. Into this vacuum steps the politician as a patron.

When a voter’s child is sick, and the public hospital is out of medicine, it is often the local politician who provides the voucher or the cash. This is not just charity; it is a political investment. It creates a powerful cultural bond of utang na loob (debt of gratitude). For a voter in the margins, choosing a candidate based on policy platforms or academic credentials is beyond them. The short-term benefits are hard to resist, and their choices are frequently a rational response to a system that they believe has historically abandoned them."

Dynasties are a harsh reality that continues to dominate the electoral landscape. Families pass down positions like heirlooms, ensuring that power remains concentrated in the hands of a few. This limits competition and perpetuates inequality, as new leaders without family backing struggle to break through.

Populism and spectacle often overshadow substance. Celebrity candidates, catchy jingles, and emotional appeals drown out serious policy debates. Elections become contests of charisma rather than competence. The weakness of political parties exacerbates the problem. Parties revolve around personalities rather than ideology. Platforms are vague, shifting with alliances, and rarely serve as vehicles for long-term policy agendas. This leaves voters choosing individuals rather than coherent visions for governance. They possess perceived character, which, in the absence of a platform, serves as a substitute for qualification.

And finally, without a doubt, money dominates campaigns. Moneyed candidates can afford massive advertising, expansive ground and social media operations, and even outright vote-buying. In contrast, reformist candidates with limited resources often fail to reach voters, no matter how sound their platforms.

Again, the persistence of these realities is rooted in poverty and inequality. When survival is at stake, a sack of rice or a few hundred pesos can outweigh promises of reform. Weak enforcement of election laws can also allow vote-buying to flourish unchecked. Meanwhile, the absence of strong civic education leaves many voters ill-equipped to evaluate candidates critically.

Correcting these deep-seated ills requires more than just voter education in the classroom; it requires a multi-pronged overhaul of our political culture. We can start by pushing for the passage of the Political Party Reform Act. By penalizing political butterflies and providing state funding for parties, we can shift the focus from personalities to platforms.

Voter education must move away from condescension. Instead of telling the poor they are wrong for taking money, we must demonstrate how that short-term gain leads to years of poor public services. Intelligent voting is the realization that the candidate who gives you 500 pesos today is likely stealing the budget for the hospital that could have saved you 50,000 pesos tomorrow.

While the Constitution mandates the prohibition of political dynasties, the lack of an enabling law has allowed families to treat public office as a birthright. Dismantling these monopolies is essential to opening the field for qualified, middle-class, or grassroots leaders who currently lack the pedigree to win. It is a relief that this administration has prioritized the passage of this law.

Young voters, especially first-timers, are less entrenched in patronage networks. Mobilizing them through schools, universities, and social media can shift voting culture. We must teach the youth to scrutinize track records over social media optics.

The realities of Philippine elections are sobering, but they are not immutable. Change requires a collective effort—government reforms, civil society initiatives, and citizen engagement. It means confronting the uncomfortable truth that poverty and inequality make voters vulnerable, and that systemic ills thrive because they are tolerated.

The task is daunting, but the stakes are too high to ignore. The future of Philippine democracy depends on it. Otherwise, we will continue to ask ourselves why we have those comedians governing us after every election.

The author is an executive member of the National Innovation Council and Lead Convener of the Alliance for Technology Innovators for the Nation (ATIN). [email protected]