The current fixation with celebrities has crowded out the trapo, who remain very much alive and kicking.

by Sheila S. Coronel

	Artwork by Sonny Ramirez

ANYONE who looks at Philippine elections today is dazzled by the glitter of celebrity. How can they not be? There are so many stars, and they shine so brightly, we all have stardust in our eyes.

Although movie stars have taken part in elections past, never in the history of Philippine elections have there been so many of them contesting so many national and local posts, from the presidency down to the mayoralty and vice mayoralty of many cities and towns, including key ones in Metro Manila, where some stars are vying even for the barangay council. The celebrities-from the movies, television, radio, and sports-are such a high-profile and glittering presence on the stage of national politics that they crowd out all the others.

This invasion by tinseltown has made for giddy, fan-club politics. Blinded by the klieg lights, we find it difficult to see clearly. The mainstream thinking is that the showbiz domination of our starstruck politics shows an unbridled populism, a democracy gone totally celebrity-mad. Unsurprisingly, foreign commentaries on the Philippines have found it difficult to take the country seriously. They focus instead on the craziness of our politics, its superficiality and utter inability to focus on platforms and issues. In Singapore, Malaysia, and elsewhere, the Philippine is considered a laughing stock, the best argument against democracy, a living example of everything that can go wrong with too much freedom. Local commentators, meanwhile, despair about the masa, who they say have been seduced by silver-screen messiahs who offer deliverance from the afflictions of real life.

But the runaway populism, the democracy gone berserk is just half the story. The problem with the Philippines is not that we have too much democracy. It is that we have too little of it. It is not that the masa have too much power. It is that they are so bereft of it. Over the years, power and wealth have remained so concentrated that the dissonance between an overdeveloped electoral politics and an underdeveloped social base for democracy has become very stark indeed.

In the Philippines, the social pyramid is very skewed: The richest 20 percent of the population account for nearly 55 percent of the national income (up from 52 percent in 1985), while the poorest 20 percent have just 4.7 percent (down from 4.8 percent in 1985). At the same time, political power is monopolized by the wealthy and the privileged. The only power that the poor have is that of numbers, and only recently have they wielded it as a class.

The political system therefore is being pulled in two directions at the same time: a raucous and inchoate populism on one side and a deepening inequality on the other. The push and pull in opposite directions has so strained the system that it is in danger of coming apart. Sooner or later, something has to give.

The opposites, however, are also intimately linked and mutually reinforcing. The electorate is star-crazed precisely because old-style politics and politicians have only caused them so much grief. Left out of the loop, the poor seek deliverance from outside the system that has excluded them. The current popularity of the likes of movie king Fernando Poe Jr. among the lowest social strata is not so much fan-club hysteria as it is a rebellion against the wealthy and the powerful. It is therefore inaccurate to say that this election, like the ones before it, is not about issues. The celebrity vote is essentially a protest vote-an expression of deeply held aspirations for a more inclusive political system.

Why such class rebellion should take the form of a movie-star millenarianism has been explained in terms of the profound changes that are taking place in the Philippine polity. Rapid urbanization, increasing media penetration, the decline of agriculture and of traditional patrons such as landlords, and the rise of new social forces and movements are changing the way in which elections are fought. Voters are searching for new leaders, and the election of celebrities reflect their as yet amorphous aspirations. The preference for celebrities reflects populist choices based on media exposure and the projection of images on the cinema or television screen.

The mass media have taken a large share of the blame for the "celebritification" of Philippine politics. They are the ones, after all, who celebrate the cult of celebrity and benefit from the commerce generated by it. By encouraging debate and exposing the rot in political life, they have also made people cynical about politics and demonized traditional politicians, or trapo, in the public's eyes. Thus, voters have eschewed education, political experience, and old wealth as criteria for electing national officials. Given weak political parties unable to organize class constituencies and to offer alternative leaders and platforms, the poor are drawn toward celebrity instead.