Doing the Hard Yards in Between Elections

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

The patriotism laid bare by the high level of voter participation tends to fade almost immediately after election day. Between elections, very few Filipinos remain actively involved in public affairs. Starting today political engagement will likely be limited to dropping a “LOL” or “SANAOL” on a public official’s Facebook post. For many of us, tracking “politics and governance” is essentially an elite pursuit that the daily grind simply cannot accommodate.

Recent findings by the Philippine Observatory on Democracy (POD) Consortium shed light on this democratic disconnect. The POD, part of a global Jesuit-led initiative to examine civic life and democratic institutions, reported that Filipinos primarily practice democracy through voting, with sharp declines in nonelectoral forms of engagement afterward.

This pattern suggests a troubling but entrenched belief: that the citizen’s role in democracy begins and ends with the vote. This frame of mind is not just cultural—it has been repeatedly reinforced by political structures that centralize power and reduce avenues for meaningful citizen involvement. As a result, Filipinos are highly participatory voters but largely disengaged citizens.

Borja et al. (2024), in their study Challenges to Democratization from the Perspective of Political Inaction, characterize Filipinos as “a mass of enthusiastic but disempowered voters.” Electoral participation is high, but there is minimal follow-through in terms of holding public officials accountable or influencing policy decisions. This leads to a scenario in which democracy is experienced as a one-time event rather than an ongoing process.

This passive posture toward governance results in what can be described as political spectatorship. Citizens observe politics in the same way they might follow a television drama—commenting on events, expressing strong opinions, but ultimately remaining on the sidelines. This reinforces a view of government as a distant actor whose role is to provide services, rather than a shared institution that citizens help shape and maintain.

Such detachment has consequences. When people view themselves primarily as recipients of state welfare rather than as co-owners of the democratic project, it encourages performative governance. Politicians begin to prioritize appearances over substance—focusing on image projection rather than long-term solutions. This dynamic is fertile ground for patronage politics, where leaders are rewarded for spectacle more than service and where dynastic politicians dominate.

It is important to note that political disengagement in the Philippines is not rooted in apathy. Filipinos are politically aware and vocal. Many follow the news and talk about issues with friends and family. But relatively few take the next step—joining civic organizations, participating in protests, attending public consultations, or getting involved in local policymaking. Political expression, in other words, remains largely informal and unstructured.

This status quo benefits those already in power. Without regular scrutiny, public officials grow too comfortable. But there is an urgent need for institutions—i.e. civil society organizations (CSOs) and media—to recalibrate their roles in demanding accountability and providing space for meaningful citizen engagement. Noting that an enlightened and engaged polity can be more effective in facilitating the crafting of responsive policies and the enactment of needed legislation.

Empowering Filipinos to become more active participants in democracy requires a long-term cultural shift. It means organizing regular forums, not just one-time rallies. It means creating pathways for future political leaders to be trained—not just to win elections but to govern with integrity. It also means fostering a citizenry that is better informed, more organized, and deeply involved in democratic life between election cycles.

Deliberative democracy offers a promising framework. By promoting structured dialogue, inclusive participation, and shared decision-making, it can help develop the civic muscles currently underused in Philippine society. Social media can complement this process—but it cannot replace the value of face-to-face dialogue and sustained organizing. And CSOs and media ultimately bear the responsibility of making this happen.

The Philippines does not lack political passion. What it needs is the civic imagination to turn that passion into enduring power.