Mara Ysabella M.

de los Santos Unit 2: Reaction Paper

Global Studies M.A (AG) 1390 words

The Voice of a Nation: Comparing the Role of Elites in Populist and Nationalist
Movements through a Chronological Exploration of the Philippine Political Landscape

Nationalism and populism are two terms that have become tremendously significant in

today’s political climate. Many are quick to refer to the rise of nationalism as an ‘elite-led’

project; populism, on the other hand, is a movement of the masses in revolt against the elites.

The distinction between the roles of the elite and the masses in nationalism and populism,

respectively, are clear-cut in scholarly writing. Through the Philippines’ history and current

political climate, however, it can be seen that nationalism and populism can be attributed to both

the masses AND the elites.

Although nationalism is an ideology that is often used in political discussion, the origins

of nationalism and the nation-state are less clear. The word “nationalism” immediately evokes a

string of images and symbols, such as a national flag or anthem. Hobsbawm (1983) refers to such

icons as “invented tradition,” which serve to provide a sense of continuity and inculcate certain

values or norms within a group of people. Nationalism makes use of such traditions in order to

create what Anderson (2006) refers to as “imagined communities.” Nations are “imagined” in

that they are limited – that is, bound within geographical limits beyond which other nations lie –

and sovereign, in that they are no longer governed through divine monarchies (Anderson, 2006).

Scholars who suggest such origins are referred to as modernists. Primordialist scholars such as

Geertz, on the other hand, posit that nationalism finds its natural origins in shared “givens”

(Hutchison & Ranger, 1994, p. 31), spiritual attachments and connections that stem from being

born into the same community, speaking the same language, or having the same social practices.
 It may be said that the role of elites in the primordial school of thought is less

emphasized, for nationalism is the natural progression of societies rooted in certain cultures and

ethnicities. For modernists, however, it is a powerful ideology that can galvanize support of the

masses for the agenda of the elite (Burrett, 2015). Thus, it can be conjectured that nationalism is

often viewed as an elite-led movement. Robinson’s example of Muslim separatism from India,

resulting in the nation now known as Pakistan – it was a movement deliberately formed by

Muslim elites who saw themselves as losing their status as a privileged community – is a clear

illustration of this idea (Hutchison & Ranger, 1994, p. 214).

The fledgling Filipino nationalism seems to manifest elements from both schools of

thought. It may be said that nationalism sprung forth due to the movement of the Ilustrados, an

elite group of Filipino expatriates who were educated overseas in cities such as Madrid and Paris

(Rafael, 1990). As the ‘enlightened,’ they were exposed to European ideas of secularist and

nationalist thought. This colored their critique of the Spanish friars who, because of their

excessive material wealth and abuse of power over the indios (natives), were identified as the

main reasons for the ills of the colony (Rafael, 1990). This critique comes to an incendiary

crescendo in Rizal’s illustrious work, Noli Me Tangere. Anderson (2006) refers to it in his

writing as an exemplar which illustrates the role of print in creating an alternative “mode of

apprehending the world.” Time, no longer a vertical construct, now becomes marked by

activities shared with anonymous fellow countrymen; this is something beautifully illustrated in

Rizal’s renowned work (Anderson, 2006). Other publications by these Filipino elite hearkened to

the sentiments of primordialists by referring to the Philippines as the “mother” land, and “idol

and light” that one feels an irrepressible mournful pull towards (Rafael, 1990). Such
publications eventually found their way home to the motherland, fueling the fire of revolution in

the oppressed Filipino masses.

While Philippine nationalism owes much of its conception to educated elites, it is a

movement that is also undeniably driven by the masses. This is embodied in the Katipunan, a

revolutionary movement that was comprised of the everyday Filipino masses (Agoncillo, 1956).

This was, in part, due to the triangular structure of the organization: members were required to

recruit two others and rose up the ranks by introducing new members into the fold (Presidential

Museum and Library, n.d). Unlike the initially-reformist elites (Rafael, 1990), however, the

Katipunan called for complete separation from the oppressive colonists. The Philippine colony,

previously a vastly culturally varied archipelago of different tribes and kingdoms, found a

cohesive identity in the peoples’ crusade for freedom. Webb and Curato (2018) go so far as to

posit that the Katipunan revolution is an early manifestation of “populist-nationalist” sentiments

in Philippine history that heralded change for the nation’s history. These “populist articulations”

(Webb and Curato, 2018) continue throughout the American colonial period and, as shall later be

discussed in this work, in the modern-day Philippines.

The concept of populism has been notoriously hard to pin down. Perhaps this is due to

the contention that the ideology is “thin-centered,” in that it is a malleable concept that lends

itself to other existing ideologies or movements – such as nationalism, for example. (Mudde &

Kaltwasser, 2017). Vickers (2017) refers to populism as “a general distrust of ‘elites’ and

established conventions.” The idea of the elite is something that scholars continually pinpoint as

an important concept in populist ideology. Mudde & Kaltwasser (2017) name three core

concepts of populism: “the people,” “the elite,” and “general will.” The people are separate from

the elite in that they are the common masses who lack cultural and socio-economic capital – they
are, however, the “sovereign” people or the source of political power. Inglehart and Norris

(2016) refer to the people as the “ordinary people,” who are distinguished from the elites by their

goodness and decency. In sum, populism is a movement that serves to amplify the voices “of the

people” (Vickers, 2017) in order to bring down a common enemy: the oligarchs, the corrupt

politicians, the powerful, the elite.

In the case of the Philippines, the “elites” against which the Philippine people must rise

are the oligarchs. Duterte refers to them as “monsters” that must be “destroy[ed]” (Alvarez,

2016). Such sentiments are oft repeated by Duterte and his supporters, beginning from the early

days of his presidential campaign. Despite being anti-elite, however, the poor are – more often

than not – the targets of Duterte’s brutal campaign against drugs. Interestingly, Arguelles (2018)

argues that it is precisely due to this brutality that he remains popular among the poor. Unlike

traditional politicians (trapos) who have repeatedly failed to deliver, Duterte has fulfilled his

electoral promises to the masses who have supported and voted for him (Arguelles, 2018).

On paper, Duterte’s meteoric ascent to power seems to be a classic case of the poor rising

to revolt against the tyranny of those in power. Interestingly enough, however, Duterte garnered

support from upper-and-middle-class voters during the 2016 presidential elections (Teehankee &

Thompson, 2016). It is not simply a movement of the common people: Duterte’s movement is

driven by the angry voices of a new “elite” – the “BPO workers, Uber drivers, and OFWs

[Overseas Filipino Workers]” (Cruz, 2016). The voices of this new elite are amplified through

the use of social media. Duterte’s regime has made clever use of so-called social media

influencers, who garner support for the president and his government online (Philippine bloggers

and ‘influencers’ can apply for presidential press passes, 2017). Social media is useful for

populist forces all over the world because it is an unchecked space (Engesser, S., Ernst, N.,
Esser, F., & Buchel, F., 2016), making it the ideal virtual space and echo chamber for converting

overseas Filipinos and fellow middle class citizens to Dutertism.

Through the example of the Philippines, it is clear that both the masses and the elite have

their respective roles to play in the ideologies of nationalism and populism. Nationalism in the

Philippines, often referred to as an elite-driven movement in the world of the academe, finds its

historical roots in both the writings of the elite and the movement of the masses in reality.

Populism, on the other hand, is often attributed as a movement of the masses. We see in the

current Philippine political landscape, however, that it is as much a movement of the elite as it is

of the common people. Thus, while the roles of the two forces of ‘the elite’ and ‘the people’ are

more distinct in academic writing, such roles are harder to distinguish in real life applications.

References

Agoncillo, T. (1956) The revolt of the masses: The story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan.
Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines Press.

Alvarez, K. C. (2016) Duterte vows to destroy ‘monster’ oligarchs. Retrieved from

https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/money/companies/576357/duterte-vows-to-destroy-
monster-oligarchs/story/

Anderson, B. (2006) Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.
3rd ed. London, U.K: Verso.

Arguelles, C. V. (2018). We are Rodrigo Duterte: Demystifying the Philippine Populist Publics.
Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/37032411/We_Are_Rodrigo_Duterte_Demystifying_the_Phili
ppine_Populist_Publics

Burrett, T. (2015) East is east and west is west? Applying theories of nationalism to Asia. In
Kingston, J. (Ed.), Asian nationalisms considered (pp. 23-36). London, U.K: Routledge.

Cruz, R. G. (2016) Why Duterte is popular among wealthy, middle class voters. Retrieved from
https://news.abs-cbn.com/halalan2016/focus/04/30/16/why-duterte-is-popular-among-
wealthy-middle-class-voters
Engesser, S., Ernst, N., Esser, F., & Buchel, F. (2016) Populism and social media: How
politicans spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society 20(8),
1102-1126.

Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (1984) The invention of tradition. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge
University Press.

Hutchison, J., & Smith, A.D (Eds.). (1994) Nationalism. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.

Inglehart, R. F., & Norris, P. (2016) Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic have-
nots and cultural backlash. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Political
Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017) Populism: A very short introduction. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

Philippine bloggers and ‘influencers’ can apply for presidential press passes. (2017) South China
Morning Post. Retrieved from https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-
asia/article/2106294/philippine-bloggers-and-influencers-can-apply-presidential

Presidential Museum and Library. (n.d) The founding of the Katipunan. Retrieved from
http://malacanang.gov.ph/4304-the-founding-of-the-katipunan/

Rafael, V. (1990) Nationalism, imagery, and the Filipino intelligentsia in the nineteenth century.
Critical Inquiry 16(3), 591-611.

Teehankee, J. C., & Thompson, M. R. (2016) Electing a strongman. Journal of Democracy

27(4), 125-134.

Vickers, E. (2017). All quiet on the eastern front? Populism, nationalism, and democracy in East
Asia. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 18(2), 59-68.