Ayuda: Pork By Another Name

The recent WR Numero survey revealing how Filipinos are split on ayuda bans during elections exposes a deeper, more troubling reality of Philippine politics.

For decades, government “dole outs” have been weaponized by politicians seeking to buy loyalty rather than earn it through meaningful governance.

What we call “ayuda” today is simply yesterday’s pork barrel in new packaging – a political tool disguised as compassion.

Pork barrel, before it was outlawed, referred to allocations for politicians’ favorite infrastructure projects in their districts – a practice that allowed them to claim credit and curry favor with constituents.

Local politicians distribute cash envelopes emblazoned with their faces while national figures announce special assistance programs that suspiciously align with election timelines.

The vicious cycle continues: voters become dependent on handouts, politicians exploit this dependency, and sustainable development programs are relegated to the sidelines.

Consider the pattern: aid distribution spikes dramatically in the months preceding elections, as evidenced by the survey showing 51% of Filipinos received ayuda in just the past three months.

Metro Manila, a crucial electoral battleground, saw the highest proportion of recipients at 60% – a statistic that should raise eyebrows.

What’s telling is the class divide in attitudes toward these practices – those with greater economic security (Classes ABC and D) strongly oppose both campaign-period ayuda and support COMELEC’s ban, while the economically vulnerable (Class E) remain divided.

This is precisely how the system perpetuates itself – by making the most vulnerable citizens dependent on political patronage rather than empowering them through sustainable economic policies.

True development requires building infrastructure, creating jobs, improving education and healthcare, and establishing social safety nets that function regardless of election cycles.

Yet politicians continue to prioritize highly visible, short-term handouts that generate immediate gratitude over less flashy but more impactful long-term investments.

The COMELEC ban on pre-election ayuda distribution is merely a Band-Aid on a gaping wound in our political system.

The bigger issue at hand is not whether ayuda should be banned during elections, but why the government continues to rely on it instead of implementing sustainable solutions to poverty.

The billions poured into short-term assistance programs could instead fund livelihood projects, education, and infrastructure that create lasting economic benefits.

The electorate must recognize that politicians who rely on ayuda as their primary platform are not offering real solutions; they are exploiting desperation for political gain.

As voters approach the May 2025 elections, they must demand candidates present comprehensive development platforms rather than promises of cash gifts and temporary relief.

We must break the mentality that elections are transactional events where votes are exchanged for short-term benefits.

The real question isn’t whether ayuda should be banned during campaign periods, but why, after decades of “democratic” elections, so many Filipinos still depend on these handouts for survival.

Until we address the structural issues that perpetuate poverty and inequality, the ayuda system will continue to exploit the vulnerable while politicians claim to be their saviors.

Voters in 2025 have a responsibility to look beyond the envelope of cash and ask: “What has your leadership done to ensure I won’t need ayuda in the future?”

That’s the election issue that truly matters.