Declining Quality of Political Discourse

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

Our politics has long relied on populist appeals, sentimental narratives, and moralistic binaries. Politicians often deploy emotionally charged language to connect with voters, sometimes at the expense of policy coherence or truthfulness. The frequent invocation of religious imagery and patriotic idealism reveals a rhetorical strategy aimed at emotional resonance rather than reasoned persuasion. While effective in mobilizing support, this approach perpetuates the “cult of personality” syndrome afflicting many Filipinos. (DDS, Yellows, Kakampinks, Solid North, etc)

We have the constitutional guarantee of free expression and a vibrant tradition of political activism, but the quality of political dialogue in our country has severely deteriorated through the years since 1986. In fact, our political discourse is increasingly characterized by spectacle over substance, emotionalism over evidence, and polarization over pluralism. It should not be a surprise then that informed decision-making during elections has been elusive. One could even argue that “bobotante” is less a pejorative term and more an accurate description of a crippling disorder vexing the electorate.

Political discourse occupies a central place in any functioning democracy. Its primary function is to serve as a conduit for the dissemination and contestation of ideas that inform public policy. Moreover, political discourse fosters a culture of transparency and accountability. It compels political leaders to justify their actions in the public arena, thereby deterring arbitrary decision-making and corruption. Clearly, the quality of political discourse is a major public concern.

Obviously, politicians and public officials are the main drivers of political discourse. Media plays an important role too, but the people in-charge of government bears a lot of the responsibility over the quality of political discourse. Public officials influence in a significant way the tenor and depth of public discussions about government policies and programs. Simply put, the quality of those holding public office determines the quality of political discourse. Elect low quality politicians, then expect poor quality political discourse.

Lamentably, our political leaders and their surrogates see titillating our basest instincts as a measure of successful communication. They frame their messaging around personalities rather than ideologies or policy platforms. Politicians find it satisfying to wage word wars with one another. They think insults and innuendos are just hazards of the trade. Even the occasional insertion of misinformation is fair game.  Political one-upmanship entertains the peanut gallery, but it sinks our politics further down the barrel.

Mudslinging and muckraking are the lowest forms of political discourse. Political leaders and public officials who use these methods as part of their “pol-comms strategy” show a very low regard for the people’s intelligence. In fact, their lone objective is to keep the polity distracted while they do their dirty deeds in office. Media exploiting this scenario is understandable. It fattens their bottom-line, so it can be tolerated to an extent.  But the rest of civil society should not stand for it.

Indeed, it is important to recognize pockets of resistance and innovation within the discursive landscape. Despite the challenges, many civil society groups, independent media outfits, and academic institutions continue to uphold the ideals of democratic deliberation. Alternative media platforms and grassroots movements are carving out spaces for inclusive dialogue and critical engagement. Legal scholars, educators, and youth advocates are actively working to reclaim and elevate public discourse by promoting civic education, digital literacy, and constructive dialogue.

The imperative now is to cultivate a culture anchored on deliberative values, critical thinking, and institutional integrity. This involves not only resisting the coarsening of political dialogue but also reimagining the conditions under which meaningful discourse can thrive. Addressing the dire state of political discourse requires a long-term commitment to structural reform and cultural renewal. But for now, civil society needs to repudiate in no uncertain terms the public bangayan and bardagulan happening between our political leaders.