MORE fascinating still is how this conflict is changing political dynamics ahead of the 2025 midterm elections. With the Marcos-Duterte alliance virtually destroyed, new political alignments are starting to show up, providing voters with more options–with few exceptions like the case of the fickle Treñas-Baronda ‘pact’ in Iloilo City. The voters might now have the chance to support fresh ideas, new faces, and more capable leaders instead of depending on the binary choice between two political overlords. This lets voters escape the hold of political dynasties that have long dominated the national and local governments, opening the path for much-needed reform in the political system.
This political episode also reminds us soberingly of the perils associated with political dynasties. Families like the Marcoses and Dutertes have held tight influence for decades, often passing on leadership roles from one generation to the next, regardless of merit; their present public diatribes and charades emphasize how flimsy these alliances can be and how personal grudges might eclipse the actual demand for public service.
The conflict emphasizes the inherent issue of letting a small number of families rule the political scene and reminds us that power vested in dynastic hands usually produces a government motivated by personal interests rather than the common good.
Simultaneously, the conflict is driving a discussion of more extensive political accountability. Since both sides are now attacking one another, the public is focusing more on their particular track records in office.
This degree of scrutiny is a good thing for Philippine politics, where political leaders sometimes operate free from the full weight of public opinion. Now, Duterte and Marcos are held to a higher standard since their dirty laundry is visible to everyone. This could cause voters to evaluate future leaders differently. Thus, competence and responsibility become more critical determinants of electoral choices.
Fascinatingly, Duterte’s erratic actions over the conflict have also started a fresh political debate on mental health. Her public outbursts—especially her odd threats—have sparked questions about political leaders’ emotional and psychological fit. Although this may seem like a minor issue in the big picture of government, it is a major change.
For too long, the psychological health of those in authority has been overlooked, as if their well-being is less important, risking both their health and the quality of their leadership. Though concerning, Duterte’s antics unintentionally highlight this crucial component of leadership, fostering future conversations on the mental stresses and strains public officials experience.
Ultimately, even if, at first glance, the Marcos-Duterte conflict seems to be a diversion from more urgent national concerns, it could give us an unexpected advantage: the opportunity to evaluate their leaders and make wise decisions going forward.
The revelation of political and personal divisions among their ranks strongly reminds us that unity cannot be based on weak foundations and that good leadership calls for more than words. It calls for capability, integrity, accountability, proficiency, and a sincere dedication to public service.
Looking ahead, this conflict is likely the impetus for a long-overdue reckoning in our country’s brand of politics. It reminds us that dynastic politics, with few exceptions, is fundamentally flawed and that the time has come for voters to seek out leaders who prioritize the people over their own family legacies. The silver lining in this dynastic feud is that it allows ordinary Filipinos to see the stark truth, demand more from their leaders, hold them accountable, and make informed choices at the polls.
***
Doc H fondly describes himself as a ‘student of and for life’ who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world that is grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views herewith do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with./PN