The use of derogatory remarks and petty arguments is widespread during political campaigns, particularly in the period leading up to elections. In many countries, political candidates and parties engage in mudslinging and bickering as they vie for power and try to gain an advantage over their opponents.
In the current Philippine setting, where the national election is still five years away, negative campaigning tactics in pursuit of power and to outdo rivals and would-be rivals are already making the scene.
Referred to as the practice of making malicious or damaging accusations against an opponent, often without substantial evidence, mudslinging involves attacking the character, integrity, or personal life of the opposing candidate rather than focusing on substantive policy differences.
Regrettably, we now see entities involved in mudslinging in the form of rumors, distortion of facts, or inflammatory language to discredit perceived threats to their political ambitions. Out of the blue, militant groups become the instruments of ambitious politicians.
A recent video of the temporary closure of a portion of busy Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City dragged in the name of Vice President Sara Duterte as the cause.
In the video uploaded on Thursday, a man who appeared to be the one recording the footage, inquired from a police officer about the identity of the one for the traffic was disrupted. The officer responded, “Si VP tatawid,” which the man interpreted as referring to Duterte.
The officer reluctantly confirmed when asked if “VP” referred to Duterte.
Duterte has refuted any involvement in the road closure, saying in a statement from her office that she did not request assistance from the QCPD to shut down the road. She said the viral video was not only misleading but also entirely untrue.
When the incident occurred, Duterte was in Mindanao commemorating World Teachers Day, far from Quezon City.
We witness bickering, petty arguments, and disputes. Name-calling, personal attacks, and trivial “he said, she said” debates — rather than important issues and coherent policy platforms — flood netizens’ newsfeeds almost daily.
The reasons behind the prevalence of mudslinging and bickering during election campaigns certainly vary. In the case of the VP, she has been the subject of attacks, left and right, since the budget season started.
Entities resort to these tactics as a way to divert attention from their own shortcomings or to manipulate public opinion. Negative campaigning is almost always effective in swaying undecided voters or mobilizing the base of supporters by appealing to emotions rather than rational arguments.
For the chameleon-skinned brains behind rabid attacks, the mudslinging and bickering’s negative consequences in the political process and public discourse are inconsequential. Never mind if their ambitions undermine trust in the electoral system. It doesn’t matter if their negative tactics discourage voter participation and contribute to a polarized and toxic political environment. They don’t give a d**n if their would-be political opponent is a party mate who demonstrated sincerity in previous election campaigns.
What matters to them is to overshadow substantive policy discussions and hinder the ability of voters to make informed decisions based on the candidates’ qualifications and proposed solutions to societal issues.
Instead of political leaders and parties setting a positive example by focusing on policy issues and promoting respectful dialogue, they’ll do anything, even sell their souls to the devil, to feed their greed for power, or “power greed.”
Money talks, so they say.