Marcos-Pinks uniteam redux

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

The buzz of a Marcos-Pinklawan coalition for 2028 is getting stronger. Maybe it is just social media being the medium that amplifies pundits and kibitzers with vivid imaginations. But it is pretty palpable from the groups who are vehemently averse to another Duterte administration that a Marcos-Pinklawan ‘uniteam’ is their best bet. The liberal ‘purists’ find the very thought of this union utterly disconcerting. But is their antipathy warranted?

Political coalition-building is a legitimate part of democratic politics. There is nothing inherently wrong with political groups, parties or factions forging alliances to win elections. Politics is, after all, about aggregating interests, building constituencies and finding common ground among groups that may not agree on everything.

But political alliances should not be purely transactional. They should not be merely temporary arrangements designed simply to get through an election. If political groups are going to ask voters to support them as a coalition, the basis of that coalition must be clear, formal and transparent. The most important principle is straightforward: voters have a right to know what they are being asked to vote for.

Therefore, for those pushing for the Marcos-Pinklawan coalition, it should not be ‘politics as usual’. Even if tradpols will necessarily be part of the equation, the process of alliance-building can take a different tract this time around. Voters and taxpayers should be mature enough to appreciate alliance-building done the right way. The backers of this political marriage should follow the rules and respect the 71 M-strong electorate.

A legit political coalition should clearly identify its common agenda, its leadership arrangements and, where appropriate, how power will be distributed among its members. The millions of Filipino voters should not have to guess what different political groups have agreed to behind closed doors. Nor should the polity discover only after an election that the coalition was based on an entirely different set of commitments.

This is, in many ways, what ultimately undid the UniTeam alliance between the Marcos and Duterte camps. The coalition appeared largely transactional. It brought together political dynasties for electoral purposes without establishing a sufficiently clear and durable political programme. Its ad hoc character became increasingly evident as the interests of its principal leaders diverged. More importantly, the public was never given a sufficiently clear understanding of the actual terms of the political partnership.

If the Marcos camp and the Pinklawans now intend to forge an alliance, there is nothing inherently wrong with doing so. They should just stop pretending that this brewing joint venture is not happening. Just put it on the table. No need for any of this cloak and dagger stuff. Let voters see exactly what they are being offered. Hiding it makes it exactly a UniTeam redux.

Indeed, the two camps should publicly state the agreed terms and conditions. Their coalition should also comply with whatever formal requirements apply to political alliances, parties and electoral arrangements. The alliance should not simply be founded an informal understanding among dynastic leaders. It should be official. To establish accountability and allow the electorate to assess the coalition on its merits, let the terms be widely known.

For example, the parties could openly agree that the Marcos camp will select the presidential and vice-presidential candidates, while the Pinklawans will be allocated eight of the twelve slots on the senatorial slate. They could also agree that the Pinklawans will nominate the secretaries of DSWD, DILG, DTI, DICT and DOH. The accord could also include pursuing specific reforms such as Charter Change or overhauling the tax system.

There is nothing inherently undemocratic about such an arrangement. Political parties negotiate positions and responsibilities all the time. What matters is whether voters know about the deal before they cast their ballots. The distinction between a legitimate coalition and another UniTeam farce lies precisely here: transparency, formality and a clearly articulated political programme.

Voters should not be treated merely as numbers needed to win an election. They are the principals to whom political coalitions must ultimately be accountable. If political leaders want their support, they should have the courage to tell them exactly what they are voting for. Concomitantly, voters need to wise up. All candidates running under a political coalition that fails to meet the standards clarified in this piece must be rejected.