A Country Trapped in Reset Mode
By Karl Garcia
Every political crisis in the Philippines eventually leads to the same demand: a reset.
Remove the leader. Start over. Clean the slate. Try again.
The impulse is understandable. When institutions disappoint and progress feels elusive, resetting offers emotional closure. It assigns blame. It promises renewal without requiring patience. But this instinct—repeated over decades—has become one of the country’s deepest governance failures.
The Philippines does not lack elections, laws, or constitutional mechanisms.
What it lacks is continuity with memory—and continuity with measurement.
Stability Is Not the Same as Development
Our Constitution is often blamed for what people find morally unsatisfying. Yet constitutions are not moral documents. They are stability documents. Their purpose is to prevent collapse, not to deliver ethical catharsis.
When presidents fall, succession proceeds automatically. The system survives. Government continues. This is not a defect—it is the design working as intended.
And yet something still feels unfinished.
That discomfort reveals a deeper truth: stability alone does not produce development. A country can remain intact while remaining stagnant. Institutions can hold while legitimacy quietly erodes. Stability preserves the system; development requires learning inside it.
Learning, however, requires memory. And memory requires measurement.
The Reset That Never Ends
In practice, the Philippines does not reset only during crises.
It resets every election.
Every six years, priorities are reordered, programs renamed, baselines recalculated, and unfinished work quietly discarded. Continuity is treated as political risk—evidence of loyalty to a predecessor rather than commitment to outcomes.
This creates institutional amnesia.
Presidents govern as pilots, not relay runners. Local officials launch loudly and inherit quietly. What cannot be completed within one term is redesigned or abandoned. Learning begins just as elections arrive.
This is not democratic vitality.
It is structural impatience—made worse by the absence of durable measurement.
Why Resets Feel Necessary—and Why They Fail
Resets feel moral. They feel decisive. They create the illusion of accountability. A leader falls, the public exhales, and the system moves on.
But the feeling fades quickly—because resets change occupants, not operating systems.
Elite circulation continues. Power remains concentrated within the same narrow circle. Accountability becomes horizontal—elite versus elite—rather than vertical, from citizens upward. Even justified removals feel anticlimactic because the structure that produced failure remains intact.
What appears as change is often continuity without learning.
And learning is impossible when outcomes are never clearly measured.
The Measurement Blind Spot
The Philippines is not short on performance systems. It is drowning in them.
We have development plans, agency scorecards, audit reports, performance contracts, and incentive schemes. Yet these instruments overwhelmingly measure activity, compliance, and documentation, not improvement.
We count:
- projects launched
- budgets obligated
- trainings conducted
- forms submitted
We rarely measure:
- congestion reduced
- learning improved
- waiting times shortened
- livelihoods stabilized
This is why resets feel necessary. When outcomes are not measured, failure becomes subjective. When failure is subjective, blame replaces diagnosis. When blame dominates, resetting feels like the only moral response.
You cannot manage what you cannot measure.
And you cannot learn from what you refuse to measure honestly.
Narratives Replace Outcomes
As continuity weakens, governance shifts from results to storytelling.
Statistics change faster than lived realities. Poverty declines on paper while hardship remains visible. Growth is celebrated in averages that hide unevenness. This is not always deception—it is often selective truth.
But when narratives drift too far from experience, trust collapses. Citizens stop listening. Democracy weakens not because people reject it, but because they no longer recognize themselves in its claims.
A country cannot learn if it keeps changing the story instead of measuring the result.
The Strongman Mirage
When democratic cycles produce repetition instead of progress, nostalgia for strongmen resurfaces. Speed is mistaken for capacity. Discipline is confused with development.
But strongmen impose direction; they rarely build institutions that outlive them. Suppression destroys feedback, and without feedback, institutions cannot improve.
Countries that succeeded did not rely on fear. They locked in institutional continuity, insulated execution from political cycles, and punished incompetence as reliably as corruption. Their discipline was systemic, not personal.
Authoritarian shortcuts without measurement produce obedience—not development.
Why Provinces Matter More Than Presidents
Development is not lived in Malacañang. It is lived locally.
Provinces are where land use meets livelihoods, fisheries meet food security, and education meets actual jobs. Yet provincial governance suffers from the same fragmentation as national politics. Plans rarely survive leadership change. Integration across land, sea, services, and infrastructure is weak. Coordination depends on personalities rather than design.
Without strong provinces—and without shared, persistent metrics—national strategies remain abstract.
Continuity must be territorial, not just temporal.
The Missing Skill: Repair
The most damaging effect of perpetual resets is the disappearance of repair.
We excel at launching. We are poor at maintaining. Infrastructure decays. Reforms stall not because they were wrong, but because no one stayed long enough to fix implementation flaws. Institutions are replaced instead of improved.
Repair requires humility. It requires admitting error. It requires staying long enough to be accountable to measurable outcomes.
Resets erase responsibility.
Repair creates it.
A country that never repairs never matures.
What Real Renewal Would Look Like
Renewal does not require perfect leaders. It requires systems that reward patience and punish neglect.
That means:
- preserving baselines across administrations
- measuring outcomes, not slogans
- rewarding officials for improving inherited systems
- treating succession as continuity of responsibility, not cancellation of memory
It also means adopting simple, brutal clarity: a small number of goals, publicly tracked, regularly reviewed—not to shame, but to learn.
These reforms are not dramatic.
That is precisely why they are avoided.
An Unfinished Country
The Philippines does not suffer from too little change.
It suffers from too much restarting and too little measuring.
Until governance becomes cumulative—until elections change leaders but not learning—every reset will feel necessary, and every outcome will feel unfinished.
The Constitution can preserve stability.
But only continuity, memory, and measurement can produce development.
And until measuring what matters becomes political capital rather than political risk, the country will remain trapped in reset mode—stable, surviving, and perpetually incomplete.
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2026/01/23/2502864/2-impeach-complaints-vs-marcos-jr-hit-snag
https://www.rappler.com/philippines/marcos-year-3-promises-progress-backlogs/
https://www.rappler.com/philippines/behind-numbers-contextualizing-marcos-claims-sona-july-2025/
https://www.rappler.com/philippines/marcos-state-nation-address-2025-bagong-pilipinas-promise/
https://www.rappler.com/voices/thought-leaders/235696-analysis-poor-quality-economic-growth-under-duterte/
https://www.rappler.com/voices/analysis-sona-2023-how-to-judge-pbbm-by-his-own-standards/
https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2026/1/13/afp-dismisses-loyalty-checks-amid-probe-into-army-colonel-who-withdrew-support-for-marcos-1516
https://populationconnection.org/resources/population-health-environment-philippines/
https://medium.com/@aspa.lejos.au/title-the-impact-of-overpopulation-in-the-philippines-introduction-overpopulation-can-be-21128e1ddb0d
https://philippines.unfpa.org/en/news/experts-advocates-express-concerns-about-%E2%80%98unseen-crisis-unintended-pregnancy%E2%80%99
On point Karl. What’s next for our country?
Thanks Arlene despite having been called to have some defeatists ideas before, I am still hopeful that we will all do what is best then if we do that, how can we go wrong?
TL;DR
Countries don’t fail for lack of plans—they fail because incentives reward drafting, narrating, and restarting rather than building, fixing, and finishing. In both software and governance, scrapping systems looks decisive but erases institutional memory and avoids the hard work of making things actually function. Politics, bureaucracy, and oversight add friction that blocks outcomes while celebrating activity. Real progress comes from building small, proven systems, measuring results, and scaling what works—often from the local level up. Plans and laws are easy. Building, maintaining, and improving systems is hard—and that’s what actually builds countries.
Re
Overpopulation issue raised by Benny. I have an article lined up but thst will take too long because it is due for a month or more. Here is a spoiler.
TL;DR
The Philippines is not “overpopulated” in the old sense. Population growth is slowing, fertility is now below replacement, and the demographic narrative of endless population explosion is outdated.
The real problem is system failure: weak planning, unequal access to education, health, jobs, and poor spatial governance. Poverty and higher fertility reinforce each other not because the poor “choose” excess children, but because choices are constrained.
Teenage pregnancy is declining overall, but remains alarming among the most vulnerable age groups, reflecting gaps in reproductive health education and access.
Urbanization hasn’t stopped—it has spread chaotically into rural areas, creating “city-like” congestion without city-level infrastructure, while hollowing out rural economies.
This is not a crisis of numbers, but a crisis of planning, opportunity, and governance.
The key question isn’t “Are there too many Filipinos?” but “Are we building systems that let Filipinos thrive where they live?”
One more spoiler about e- governance
TL;DR
The Philippines’ e-governance didn’t fail because of lack of technology—it failed because of bad governance.
Despite starting computerization as early as the 1970s, the country still runs on paper-heavy, fragmented, and corruption-prone systems. Every administration brings new vendors, new platforms, and new disruptions, abandoning what came before. There is no institutional continuity, no enforced national data architecture, and no authority strong enough to mandate interoperability.
Digital projects became political trophies and corruption vehicles, not public service tools. Bureaucratic resistance (often driven by loss of discretion, rents, and patronage) further undermines automation. Even successful systems never scale; they remain isolated “islands of efficiency.”
Worst of all, systems are designed for agencies, not citizens, making e-governance harder to use—especially for the poor and rural populations.
Bottom line:
The Philippines doesn’t lack computers or software. It lacks political maturity, institutional discipline, and citizen-centered design. Until e-governance is treated as a long-term national reform—not a vendor-driven political project—the digital promise will remain a paper tiger.
Hi Karl,
I just put this response in the previous essay of yours (Mas Mahirap…), but I realize it is also relevant in this thread. So I hope you don’t mind if I paste it here:
*But fragmented governance structures, lack of policy continuity, procurement issues, institutional politics, and resistance to automation meant systems were often disjointed, duplicated, or under-utilized — leading to the perception (and reality) of “failure” in many areas.* – Karl
Sounds like a failure in leadership. Do you agree?
That would touch on the issue of “strong leader” vs. buy in by a broad base. I think Joey had ideas on that.
I recall Francis and his analogy about the poor bum who makes it his goal to get into the Univ. of the Phils. Is UP capable of producing successful leaders?
Perhaps some of us here at TSOH can give the matter some critical thought.
both leadership and systems failure.
Let us check where Presidents graduated:
– UP: Ferdinand Marcos Sr., Laurel, Manuel Roxas, Quirino, GMA
– no college degree: Marcos Jr., Erap, Aguinaldo, Osmena
– UST: Quezon, Macapagal
– Ateneo: PNoy
– PMA: FVR
– Cory: College of Mount St. Vincent
– Mapua: Magsaysay
– San Beda: Duterte
As for the degrees of those with degrees, this is the breakdown:
Lawyers: Quezon, Laurel, Roxas, Quirino, Garcia, Macapagal, Marcos, Duterte
Economists: GMA, PNoy
Engineer: Magsaysay
Military: FVR
Liberal arts: Cory
Hehe, so is the problem now too many lawyers (who often have a bit of a pilosopo mindset in the Philippines) or too many UP people, who are often known for one-upmanship, aka pataasan ng ihi?
Let me correct google
FVR is a wespointer but it is a practice if you took our plebe or first year in PMA you are a mistah of that class no matter when or where you graduate
UP is top notch then and now and it just jumped up in the global rankings
UP gave us the Marcos and Ver tandem
UP is topnotch, but there are those who say that UP never was an ethical place. MRP famously joked that it taught the subject of crookery.
Well, there are UP people who say that Ateneo is just less political than UP because Ateneo is a monarchy unlike free for all UP. There is of course the old joke about Ateneans and La Sallistas which you might remember. If UP is pataasan ng ihi, La Salllistas are taught by the friars to wash their hands after pissing, while Ateneans don’t need to wash their hands as the Jesuits teach them how to not get them dirty.
I remember it from you hehe.
This was my question: ” Is UP capable of producing successful leaders?” From the exchange between Irineo and Karl, I think the answer is “no.” Am I reading you guys right?
They are capable I am sure
UP has produced successful leaders in the sense that they won election and become presidents like manuel roxas, the 5th president, elpidio quirino, the 6th president, and ferdinand marcos sr, 10th president.
maybe that is the reason why duterte tapped UP’s leonor briones to be his deped sec, whose chairmanship was summat lackluster due to bad publicity buying all those overpriced computers that mostly ended up in the ukay ukay stores. judi taguiwalo was also tapped as sec of dwph and like fellow alumni leonor briones, judi was just as lackluster. despite the big budget, dwph did not deliver, many classrooms were in state of disrepairs and few school buildings were built.
My own answer is that, yes, UP can produce successful leaders as college is just the foundation. Character, opportunity, and intelligence drive leadership development. The weak leadership in the Philippines is a function of the social environment that favors entitlement over skills, not core education. Core education is sound.
In an attempt to critically think about antiquated Philippine system of governance and a possible solution to bring it to the 21st century, I asked AI to help me with the Estonia model for running a country. It is a baby step illustration, dealing with a simple business owner’s need to bring a “Barangay Clearance” to City Hall.
>>The Estonia Model turns a 4-hour trip to a government office into a 0.5-second digital handshake.
The “Paper” vs. “API” (Application Programing Interface) Comparison
Imagine a business owner needs to prove they have a “Barangay Clearance” to the City Hall.
What the API “Talk” Looks Like
If you were to peek at the code moving between offices, it would look as simple as this. This is the “language” that fixes fragmented governance:
The Request (City Hall asking the Barangay):
JSON
{
“request_type”: “Verification”,
“target_agency”: “Barangay_San_Lorenzo”,
“subject_ID”: “PH-123-456”,
“data_needed”: “Residency_Status”
}
The Response (The Barangay answering back):
JSON
{
“subject_ID”: “PH-123-456”,
“status”: “VALID”,
“expiry_date”: “2026-12-31”,
“digital_signature”: “SIG_BARANGAY_8822”
}
Why this is the “First Step” for the Philippines:
Does the thought of a .5 second digital “handshake” vs. a 4 hour physical trip sound appealing to a Filipino?
Let me know….
Joke only but correction- the barangay hall hsndles barangay clearance- but city hall has other requirements like the jurassic cedula
“both leadership and systems failure.” – Irineo
Guess who has the brains? 🙂
Leadership has the brains, and creates the systems. That was why I got excited by the Estonia story. Their young people (20 and 30 year olds) responded to the challenge of building the country after the Soviet collapse. Rizal would have loved them! (“A La Juventud Filipina” – “¡Bella esperanza de la Patria Mía!”) Joey can translate for us.
And boy did they build the systems! Living in Germany, you must be impressed by the systems that the Estonians built. Germans are known for their efficiency…and that was the goal of the Estonian nation builders. Russians, I believe, are the anti-thesis of efficiency and it seems, to their credit, the Estonians as a nation rejected it.
“Hehe, so is the problem now too many lawyers (who often have a bit of a pilosopo mindset in the Philippines) or too many UP people, who are often known for one-upmanship, aka pataasan ng ihi?” – Irineo
I believe the young man, Laar, who responded to the challenge to lead the country, was a history teacher.
Here is a brief report about him:
>>Mart Laar is essentially the “Anti-Politician” who became a legend. He wasn’t a tech genius, a billionaire, or a career statesman. He was a 32-year-old history teacher who was handed the keys to a country that was literally falling apart.
Here is the profile of the man behind the “Estonian Miracle”:1. The Background: A Student of Resistance
2. The Motivation: “No Other Choice”
What motivated a history teacher to take such a radical “leap into the unknown”? It wasn’t just nobility; it was desperation and love of country.
3. The “Laar Method” (A Cheat Sheet for easy read and comprehension)
Three traits:
“Just Do It” – He didn’t wait for a perfect plan. He implemented reforms in the first year before opposition could organize.
Radical Transparency – He fired the old Soviet bureaucrats and replaced them with young people who weren’t “spoiled” by the old system.
Technology as Equalizer – He saw computers not as toys, but as a way to make a small country “bigger” than its neighbors.
Laar proves that you don’t need to be a tech-lord or a titan of industry to fix a country. You just need to be a teacher who loves the truth and isn’t afraid to fail.<<
What do you think? A story to inspire Filipinos? Or would they rather play video games?
Is UP capable of producing successful leaders?
—————
I think the question should be … “Kaya ba ng ‘Pinas ang magkaroon ng magaling , magiting at mapagmahal na Pangulo ?
“Kaya ba ng ‘Pinas ang magkaroon ng magaling , magiting at mapagmahal na Pangulo?”
Oo – si PNoy, hindi ba? (How about PBBM?)
Did the country have its chance at a capable leader, and then passed it off by not electing the candidate he endorsed? In fact, the people (aka “‘Pinas”) elected the anti-thesis of PNoy (Duterte) as if to spite the legacy of PNoy. Any critical thoughts from the Society on that?
PNoy’s mum, cory aquino was much loved president too, being the 1st female president in asia, serving from 1986 to 1992 and become a democratic icon. though a lot of our high ranking men resented her being only a housewife to lead the nation. she survived 7 coup attempts! all lead by men resentful of her success. our 1987 constitution was created during her watch and has hold true despite several efforts to do away with it.
pity though, PNoy’s sister, the queen of all media, may not have shared PNoy’s attempts not to have duterte elected, she made it clear that she had once approached duterte in order for him to mentor her since had wanted to run a mayor of tarlac and wanted tarlac to be just as successful as davao that prospered under duterte’s watch. she also said duterte was also respectful to her, thus throwing into almighty doubt that duterte is rude, crude and downright misogynist. but this was not about her but about the good of the nation, and PNoy thought duterte would not be good for the nation. in the end, I think, the aquino votes went to duterte, though I dont want to say anything more, PNoy’s sister is now sick and being kept busy battling ill health and hopefully away from influencing political outcomes.
“she (Cory A.) survived 7 coup attempts! all lead by men resentful of her success. our 1987 constitution was created during her watch and has hold true despite several efforts to do away with it.” – Kasambahay
Did the people “circle the wagons” around her to protect her from the wolves through public pressure? Or did they hang her out to dry to fend for herself?
Meanwhile, Irineo commented that the problems are the leaders AND the system. Istambay wondered if UP can produce leaders that are “magaling , magiting at mapagmahal (sa bayan)”.
I thought yes, and that PNoy was arguably one. We have members in the Society that I believe Francis called “Marcos Fan Boys”. Is PBBM another leader “na magaling, magiting at mapagmahal?” What do “Marcos Fan Boys” think?
If we have such a leader, we can move towards implementing solutions using knowledge we already have as Karl G. has pointed out. These solutions would be geared towards improving “the system” so that “poor bum” can get into UP and become rich…and then we deal with corruption. That was Francis’s recommended pathway.
Any critically thought ideas?
AI Overview
Corazon Aquino survived multiple, often violent, coup attempts (1986–1989) by relying on the crucial loyalty of General Fidel Ramos and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), significant U.S. government intervention (particularly in 1989), and strong, persistent popular support that acted as a civilian shield against rebel military forces.
Key factors in her survival included:
Despite the instability and bloodshed caused by these uprisings, specifically from the 1987 and 1989 attempts, her administration held together through a combination of these factors.
There are no Marcos fan boys at TSOH that I know of. You’d have to name names for me to understand how you came upon that misunderstanding. Francis sees things well. I doubt that he sees fanboys at TSOH.
My definition of “fanboy” is someone so enamored of a person that they recast truths, and will not see their bad deeds as bad because it destroys their false argument. It’s the flip side of “hater”, a person who so detests someone that they recast truths, and will not see their good deeds as good because it destroys their false argument.
“There are no Marcos fan boys at TSOH that I know of.” – JoeAm
Thanks, JoeAm….
Here is the more important issue in my post: *Is PBBM another leader “na magaling, magiting at mapagmahal?”*
Istambaysakanto’s opinion is that PBBM is “doing good.” Am not sure how that response relates to his standard of “magaling, magiting, at mapagmahal.” But that is his opinion.
I don’t think anyone else yet in the society has expressed his opinion on this.
I bring this up because recently, Francis suggested that we were barking up the wrong tree by attacking CORRUPTION first. He suggested we (“poor bum” in his analogy) should focus on GETTING RICH first…the fight against corruption can come second, or third….just not first.
Since that post of his, I came across two countries that did that – Estonia and Georgia. And it appears that they succeeded – and simultaneously both in making their citizens rich AND getting a handle on ridiculously out of control corruption while they were Soviet Union satellites.
A few years ago I learned from a Filipino economist that Pres. PNoy was a very successful president both in terms of the country’s economy AND battling corruption. That is of course by Philippine standards, i.e. in comparison with past administrations. By the standards of Estonia and Georgia, I think PNoy would be seen as less than successful, especially in light of the fact that his gains did not survive his departure from Malacañang. That was a requirement of the Estonia and Georgia models, that success was not dependent upon the country’s prime ministers still being in power.
I discussed with AI the hypothetical of someone like PNoy using the models of Estonia and Georgia to achieve similar results. The answer is interesting….
Now of course PNoy is gone, but what we have is PBBM who at least Istambay considers “doing a good job.” It is late in the game for him. In my discussions with AI on a hypothetical situation for a PNoy type leader, we worked with a 6 year term. PBBM’s term is half over….and of course PBBM is not PNoy.
Pro and opposing views welcome! Also critical thinking… 🙂
Francis’ point as I read it is not to put corruption aside while going for economic growth. He makes the point that the well being of Filipinos can be improved faster through economic growth, that is not managed well in the Philippines today, than by obsessing over corruption. But sure, jail the senators too. He is echoing Bill Clinton, “It’s the economy, stupid”. The US was obsessing over foreign policy at the time. The Philippines is obsessing over corruption. Put economic development as highest priority.
Aquino would get a C from me on corruption. Although his agency heads were for the most part competent and honest, he still “bought” legislative loyalty through pork, did not clean out Customs, and did not get patronage, the enduring base for corruption, exorcised. The Philippine deep state is patronage, not merit. I don’t know about Estonia or Georgia. Marcos is pretty much like Aquino, running a sincere government but not changing the corrupt foundation, patronage over merit.
“Francis’ point as I read it is not to put corruption aside while going for economic growth.” – JoeAm
Here are Francis’s words:
*When a country becomes rich enough, the middle class becomes big enough to demand fancy things like anti-corruption. When a country is poor (like ours), far too many people are hungry or worrying about which roof to shelter under or what jobs are available, to think about such faraway things like “transparency.” Clearly, the solution lies first in making enough people have jobs, full bellies and homes. Once the basic needs of enough people are met, then we can start caring about (and persuading people about) more idealistic things. Democracy. Virtue. ANTI-CORRUPTION.* – Francis
I’d be shocked if he thought efforts to stop corruption should end. I’d say that is nonsense. I agree totally that, in terms of making Filipino lives better, economic progress should be an obsession … but corruption should be addressed diligently.
I included that in a future installment due tomorrow, in the mean tine, the next article is about Trump and Duterte governance.
You can bring your discussion there.
Thanks.
Welcome.
My impression is that Duterte was a battleaxe mayor but a normal human, meaning he has the ability to charm, hurt, help, and relate. His presidency attached power to the battleaxe and he went adrift killing people and taking patronage to corrupt new heights. But sit at the table with him, he’s a normal friendly person.
those who get on the bad side of duterte suffered greatly. leila de lima was jailed for trump up drug charges, senator trillanes, who questioned the involvement of duterte’s family in the illegal drug trade, has his amnesty revoked.
duterte can be good at times, just dont get on the bad side of him, the many who resorted to fist pumping with him were greatly rewarded. they often turned the other way when duterte went on killing spree! and when he went rogue and went the chinese way, making chinese criminals his economic advisers that’s when he truly lost the plot. but filipinos remembered, and rejoiced when duterte was successfully hauled before the hauge.
“But sit at the table with him, he’s a normal friendly person.” – JoeAm
While sitting at the table with Duterte, does he remain normal and friendly if you disagree with him? Just curious. I’ve heard that is not the case with Donald Trump.
Good question. I suspect it is the nature of the disagreement. I think Filipinos are inherently diplomatic, person to person, so no one would say “Rody, that’s stupid” and find themselves at his table. Aquino and Duterte were “friends” in a political/professional way. Duterte supported Aquino as president in 2010 and was a part of the LP political effort. Face to face the conversations were probably shallow and amiable. My guess.
ah, cv, you should have seen how scathing the komikal skits of duterte’s campaign way back presidential election 2016 that targeted PNoy’s sister, with bong go saying to actor philip salvador, the one time squeeze of PNoy’s sister and father of her autistic son, naloko mo ba siya, to which philip salvador professed his undying love for the sister! and yet philip continued to be part of the skits that mocked his one time squeeze much to duterte’s amusement. in the end philip become critical of the people who opposed duterte and told vehemently, mamatay sana kayong lahat!
you see, PNoy’s sister might not have gotten on the bad side of duterte but that did not stop duterte from letting his people mocked her big time during the campaign! and to think that she might have inadvertently endorsed duterte for president, such horror!
The late Cory Aquino and PNoy did a good job .
PBBM is doing good IMHO.
As to why the people elected Duterte ? Nabulag , nagoyo however at least in the first six months, the people could have known that this guy is a fraud, not a statesman .
Back to the issue if UP is capable of producing successful leader… I say the quality of a leader must be based on character.
AI Overview (people elected duterte in 2016 – pinagbigyan lang po ang kandidato ng mindanaw. for once letting summat backward mindanaw have a sitting president who might be able to get philippines to the stellar heights it highly deserved, and gotten instead the runt of the litters!
* * *
Ardent supporters of Rodrigo Duterte’s 2016 presidential campaign consisted of a mix of close Davao-based allies, political figures seeking a shift from “imperial Manila,” and a strong grassroots movement supported by social media. Key figures in his campaign team,, financial supporters, and allied groups included:
Core Campaign Team and Top Supporters
Key Political and Business Allies
Key Campaign Donors (Financial Supporters)
Supporting Groups
The campaign was also characterized by a highly active, volunteer-driven social media movement, which was key to mobilizing support and challenging traditional media narratives
“The late Cory Aquino and PNoy did a good job .
PBBM is doing good IMHO.” – Istambaysakanto
Karl G. concluded his essay “A Country Trapped in Reset Mode” with this:
“And until measuring what matters becomes political capital rather than political risk, the country will remain trapped in reset mode—stable, surviving, and perpetually incomplete.”
Is that our standard for a “good job” by a president: a country trapped in reset mode – stable, surviving, and perpetually incomplete?”
I submit that we as a people should raise our standards and demand more from our leadership. I’m not saying that will work, but it seems worth a try.
Totally agree. The “we” at TSOH has been at it for 15 years. The difficulty is in getting from 30,000 readers to 110 million citizens, or to 20 political movers and shakers. When you watch Rep De Lima in action, or Sonny Trillanes, you are watching people influenced by writings here.
The “doing good” comment was a comparative view from his predecessor.