The Electoral Circus and the Poverty of the Filipino Proletariat

The Philippines remains chained to the yoke of imperialism, a nominally independent capitalist republic, in which national economic development is majorly subordinate to the interests of foreign capital. Behind the façade of bourgeois democracy lies the essence of a state apparatus that acts as an instrument of class domination. The Filipino proletariat and peasantry bear the full brunt of this oppression, through intensified exploitation, austerity measures, and systematic destruction of living conditions.

Never, at any point in history, has the Filipino bourgeoisie demonstrated any real independence from foreign capital. The so-called “Filipino First” policy promoted by the Garcia government during the late 1950s, celebrated as an attempt at economic nationalism, was quickly abandoned under pressure from US capital and buried by the local bourgeoisie itself, which lacked both the means and the will to break with imperialism. The contemporary expansion of conglomerates such as the San Miguel Corporation or Ayala is based on joint ventures, foreign loans, and speculative capital inflows. Meanwhile the supposed “pivot towards China” under Duterte has merely replaced one imperialist master with another, without affecting the dependent status of the Philippine bourgeoisie.

Even conflicts between factions of the ruling class, such as the expropriation of the Lopez family by the Marcos regime, represented nothing more than a reconfiguration of the balance of power among compradors—all under the direction of imperialism. The archipelago’s strategic position in the Asia-Pacific region has made it the scene of inter-imperialist rivalry. This rivalry is mainly between US and Chinese capital, with the local bourgeoisie aligning itself, when convenient, with the power capable of ensuring the continuity of its profits.

This development confirms the fundamental thesis of Marxism. In the era of imperialism, the national bourgeoisie in dependent countries has no progressive role to play. National liberation cannot emerge within the framework of capitalism, but requires the revolutionary conquest of power by the proletariat and the abolition of social relations that perpetuate dependence and exploitation.

The midterm elections on May 12, 2025, confirmed the perpetual stagnation of the Philippine political scene, dominated by parasitic dynasties, local caudillos, and competing imperialist blocs. One such event of the campaign included a “liberal-democratic” opposition led by Senator Risa Hontiveros—supported by sectors of US imperialism—has gained ground, capitalizing on growing discontent against the Marcos Jr. regime. It has been attempting to present itself as a “progressive” alternative. But, as always, this is a false alternative within the same bourgeois order.

The presidential bloc retained control of the House of Representatives and maintained its influence over the Senate, with the support of provincial potentates, security forces, and economic interests centered around Beijing. The DuterTen Coalition, although reduced in size, has maintained its stronghold in Mindanao and in Muslim-majority regions, exploiting security rhetoric and the authoritarian pseudo-populism it is well known for.

The corrupt electoral system—based on vote buying and intimidation—once again functioned as a mechanism for internal turnover within the bourgeoisie and for perpetuating the status quo. 82% of the population, millions of proletarians, took part in the vote only to find themselves, the next day, facing the same miserable wages, the same increase in the cost of living, and the same repression of their struggles.

The lesson is clear. The proletariat, in the Philippines and in all other countries, has no candidate, neither today nor tomorrow, in the ballot boxes of the class enemy.

On January 11, 2025, the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), the country’s largest trade union federation, once again appeared before the bourgeois parliament to demand a wage increase of 150 pesos per day. This organization, which claims to represent the interests of the proletariat, instead highlights the historical failure of reformist unionism.

The TUCP correctly notes that the majority of Filipino families live in poverty and hunger, amid continuous increases in the cost of basic necessities, tariffs, and social contributions. But it channels class anger into parliamentary petitions, rather than directing it toward class struggle.

“Without a 150 peso increase, those who are already at risk of poverty or on the brink of destitution will fall into the abyss,” said Vice President Luis Corral, revealing all the timidity and class collaboration that characterize official unionism.

Meanwhile, the planned increase in the LRT-1 transport fare of 15 pesos (US$0.22) will cancel out exactly 15 of the 35 pesos from the latest minimum wage adjustment, leaving workers with a real increase of just 20 pesos. This is completely inadequate in the face of relentless inflation.

The reformist illusion propagated by the TUCP—that participation in bourgeois elections and parliamentary mechanisms can lead to substantial improvements for workers—only serves to legitimize the institutions of capital, disarming the proletariat. These organizations lead workers to believe that by following their self-proclaimed “union leaders,” they can alleviate poverty without questioning the very foundations of the capitalist system. This is a fundamental betrayal of class interests. The phenomenon of reformist leadership stabbing the proletariat in the back is unfortunately a familiar tale in all countries.

Only a broad, organized general strike by the Filipino proletariat can open the way to real change—not the ballot box or parliamentary motions, which serve only as a safety valve for class contradictions.

Meanwhile in the countryside, the situation for the agricultural proletariat in the Philippines is also dire. The Draft Law No. Senate Resolution 1801 guarantees small farmers a minimum income equal to the regional minimum wage. This parliamentary maneuver aims to appease rural discontent without addressing the fundamental contradictions of agrarian capitalism.

The rural proletariat is exposed to catastrophic conditions: climate change, natural disasters, chronic debt, brutal pressures from the global market. Within the capitalist mode of production, no real improvement in their condition is possible.

There needs to be a united struggle between poor farmers, agricultural workers, and industrial workers, aimed at increasing minimum wages through proper class organization. Such a movement would deal a heavy blow to the bourgeoisie and contribute to the development of class consciousness, both in the countryside and in the cities.

The Filipino proletariat must reject all forms of political participation within bourgeois institutions. Only through revolutionary class struggle can the working masses of the Philippines liberate themselves from the double yoke of internal exploitation and imperialist domination. The emancipation of the Filipino proletariat does not depend on choosing between competing bourgeois factions, but on its ability to establish itself as an autonomous political force, with the historic task of overthrowing capitalism.