Political shifts and the persistent influence of disinformation

Fourteen years ago, the Labour Party in the United Kingdom suffered a major defeat at the hands of the Conservative Party. In this year's elections, it's the Conservative Party's turn to suffer a major defeat. This only shows that the public mood changes over time, especially when there is a perceived need for change or when the party in power fails to deliver.

This is a lesson that every political party must learn. And there is also a message for those who feel they must ally themselves with people in power on practical grounds in order to gain some power or prevent irrelevance.

If one truly believes in one’s principles and programs, then one should stick to one's guns, as the public mood and the political wind direction may someday change in your favor. Unity and political accommodations must be based on principles and a common stance on issues, not merely on practical, self-interested, or conservative considerations.

Thus, I agree with the Liberal Party (LP) stalwarts who have declared their reluctance to ally with the Marcos administration merely to prevent a return to power by the Dutertes. Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, president of the LP, stated it aptly and clearly: “For electoral purposes, I think LP will remain as the political opposition and will put up its independent slate both in the national and local level. But on issue-to-issue basis, there can be an alliance.”

In an article from PhilStar.com, Lagman explained that any alliance should be formed on a case-by-case basis, focusing on specific issues such as the nation's rift with China over the West Philippine Sea and the International Criminal Court's investigation into the war on drugs under Duterte's administration.

* * *

Besides political alliances, another critical concern that politicians and political parties must monitor is the threat of disinformation and misinformation, commonly referred to as fake news. As sure as the sun rises, disinformation partisans, including vloggers backed by political operators and possibly funded by local and foreign money, are already being activated to try to influence the outcome of our foreign policy and the 2025 elections.

The West Philippine Sea issue, for example, is being exploited by disinformation actors. Concerned by this, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has launched COMPLAN Mulat (Awake), a new initiative aimed at countering deceptive narratives and enhancing public awareness of the Philippines' territorial rights. AFP chief Gen. Romeo Brawner Jr. stated that this initiative specifically targets China's aggressive claims and misinformation campaigns online, which threaten the Philippines' stance in the region.

Even scare rumors of potential hypersonic missile threats from China, shared by Senator Imee Marcos, seem to align with disinformation propaganda. This feeds into pro-Duterte trolls’ overstated narrative that highlights the so-called dangers of provoking China in the disputed South China Sea region, a part of which we refer to as the West Philippine Sea. These trolls and vloggers exploit the ongoing tensions, selling the narrative that the Philippines, supposedly like during former president Rodrigo Duterte's time, is safer by not antagonizing China and by downplaying the Philippines’ legitimate claims in the region.

We should not easily fall for these rumors. They prey on the relative ignorance of many people regarding international policy and foreign affairs. Of course, it is possible that major powers in the region are secretly targeting each other, and by extension, their smaller allied countries, with powerful long-range missiles. However, such possibilities should not be overly emphasized. To do so serves a sinister purpose: it scares the public and ultimately pressures our policymakers to retreat on issues related to our disputed territories and Exclusive Economic Zone rights, for fear of angering a major power. Arguments that appeal to fear and threats have no place in the foreign policy and practice of any respectable country, whether one is on the receiving end of the threats or the one imposing the fear.

I still subscribe to the liberal view that the international order can transcend the self-interested nature of states and promote harmony among international actors. In this regard, we rely on the guidance of international law, treaties, and cooperative arrangements to avoid the so-called anarchy that classical realists see in the international system.

Despite multiple threats, the fact remains that today’s international order, established post-World War II, faces a significantly reduced prospect of war among great powers compared to the days before the establishment of the United Nations.