Wazzup Pilipinas!?
During the previous presidential election campaigns, one of the most widely discussed interviews was between renowned broadcaster Boy Abunda and Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr., the son of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos. At that time, the Filipino electorate was looking for clarity, strong leadership, and detailed plans to address the country’s most pressing challenges. However, the interview left much to be desired, with Marcos offering little beyond motherhood statements and vague promises that failed to resonate with the real issues Filipinos face.
Boy Abunda, known for his direct approach and probing questions, tried to push Marcos for more specific policies and concrete plans. However, Marcos's responses remained disappointingly generic, void of substantial insight or a clear vision for the country's future. His answers often sounded like standard political rhetoric, full of buzzwords but lacking any actionable strategies that could address the nation's urgent concerns.
A Rehash of Politico Buzzwords
From the outset, Marcos’s responses were predictably broad and familiar, echoing standard political soundbites. Concepts like "unity" and "progress" were tossed around without addressing specific national issues that required immediate attention. Marcos failed to provide concrete plans on how he would address problems such as the ongoing impact of the pandemic, poverty, and inflation—issues that directly affect millions of Filipinos.
Instead of offering tangible solutions, his answers relied on vague generalities and promises of "growth" and "progress," often repeating phrases that have become staples in political campaigns. There was no indication that Marcos had a clear understanding of the complexities of these problems or the ability to tackle them head-on with innovative policies.
A Lack of Ground-Level Experience
Marcos’s responses also highlighted a noticeable disconnect from the realities faced by ordinary Filipinos. Leaders who have spent time engaging with local communities—listening to their concerns and understanding their struggles—are able to develop practical solutions that can truly make a difference. However, Marcos seemed removed from the experiences of everyday citizens, and his failure to propose real, on-the-ground solutions left many wondering if he was even aware of the extent of the challenges the country was grappling with.
In fairness to Boy Abunda, he tried to guide the conversation toward more specific policies and concrete plans. However, every time the questions became too pointed, Marcos deflected, offering no substantial answers or details on how he intended to improve the lives of Filipinos. His campaign lacked any clear vision, leaving voters questioning what exactly he stood for beyond a general promise of progress.
Revisiting 2016: "I Cannot Give What I Don’t Have"
The interview also reminded many of a controversial statement Marcos made during the 2016 vice-presidential debate. When asked about the ill-gotten wealth of his family, he famously said, "I cannot give what I don’t have." The remark, which many found evasive and dismissive, encapsulated the larger issue with Marcos's political persona—his reluctance to address his family’s controversial history and the continued cloud of corruption that hung over his campaign.
Fast forward to the 2022 presidential campaign, and Marcos’s interview continued to show that his approach to the country’s issues was just as evasive. Rather than confronting his past head-on and offering a path toward reconciliation or accountability, he continued to deflect and offer vague assurances, much to the frustration of many Filipinos seeking real change.
The WPS Debate: Another Missed Opportunity
As the interview shifted to the topic of the West Philippine Sea (WPS) and the ongoing maritime dispute with China, Marcos once again failed to provide any substantial policy or strategy. Rather than offering a firm stance or clear plan of action to defend Philippine sovereignty, his response was underwhelming and devoid of the urgency the situation demanded. In a time when the country faces increasing pressure from China in the South China Sea, his failure to address the issue with seriousness and clarity was deeply concerning.
A good friend, who is a diplomat, succinctly summarized the situation by calling Marcos "engot (idiot)" for his failure to grasp the full gravity of the situation. In an era when foreign policy and national security are at the forefront of global discussions, Marcos's failure to address these issues with the necessary depth and seriousness was a glaring weakness.
Ping Lacson's Contrast: A Leader with a Plan
In stark contrast to Bongbong Marcos, Senator Ping Lacson’s interviews during the same period offered a more detailed and thoughtful approach to governance. Lacson, with decades of experience in public service and national security, provided concrete policies and a clear vision for the country’s future. His understanding of the Philippines' national security, economic stability, and foreign relations was much more thorough, and he demonstrated the ability to think critically about solutions for the country’s most pressing problems.
Lacson’s interviews highlighted the stark differences in leadership styles, as he was able to articulate a clear plan for the nation’s future, backed by a wealth of experience and a deep understanding of the issues at hand. In comparison, Marcos’s failure to offer similar substance only underscored his lack of preparedness for the presidency.
"Babangon Muli Tungo sa Bagong Lipunan?" Not Under Marcos’s Watch
Throughout the interview, Marcos repeatedly invoked the phrase "babangon muli tungo sa bagong lipunan" (rising again toward a new society), a slogan that played into the nostalgia of his father’s regime. However, as the conversation unfolded, it became clear that the promise of a "new society" under Marcos was nothing more than empty rhetoric. His failure to offer specific, actionable plans to address the country’s challenges left many doubting whether his leadership could bring about any real change.
Marcos’s campaign was built on promises of revival and progress, but his inability to offer a fresh perspective or innovative solutions suggested that the country would only be stuck in the same cycles of underachievement and stagnation.
Conclusion: Time for New Leadership
As the 2022 presidential election campaign drew to a close, it became evident that the Philippines needed more than just a return to the past. What the country required was a new generation of leaders who could offer concrete solutions to the myriad problems facing the nation. Bongbong Marcos, in his interview with Boy Abunda, failed to prove that he was the leader capable of delivering that change. His rhetoric and lack of specific policies demonstrated that his leadership would not bring the fresh perspective needed to address the complex issues of modern-day Philippines.
In the end, the interview reinforced the belief that the country needs new leadership—leaders who are not only visionary but also capable of acting decisively and pragmatically. Marcos's presidency, which eventually won him the top office, may have promised a brighter future, but based on his performance during the campaign, many still question whether his leadership will truly bring the changes the country so desperately needs.
Ross is known as the Pambansang Blogger ng Pilipinas - An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Professional by profession and a Social Media Evangelist by heart.
Post a Comment