The United States holds a uniquely hegemonic position in global politics, with its electoral outcomes often helping define international political and economic landscapes. As the world’s largest economy and a supposed “champion” of democratic ideals, U.S. policy shifts influence across allies and adversaries alike, setting the tone for global governance priorities. This is especially more evident in countries with historical and strategic ties to the U.S., such as the Philippines. The Philippines, a former American colony, has long maintained close relations with the U.S. rooted in shared governance principles, democratic institutions, and commitments to human rights. These ties have profoundly defined Philippine domestic policies and political strategies, with U.S. leadership serving as both a partner and a benchmark for local governance reforms. Thus, despite almost 80 years of freedom from U.S. control, the Philippines is still very much affected by U.S. domestic politics. U.S. election outcomes still significantly influence Philippine domestic politics, influencing the way the Philippines practices governance and how the state aligns itself ideologically and underscores the interconnectedness of the two nations' political trajectories.
The colonial history between the Philippines and the United States significantly affected Philippine political structures and practices. Following the Philippine-American War (1899–1902), the U.S. established a colonial government, introducing democratic institutions such as a constitutional framework, a bicameral legislature, and public education. However, these reforms were often superficial, designed to entrench U.S. political and economic influence while fostering a local elite that mirrored American governance ideals. This elite-driven political system persists, contributing to inequality and weak institutional frameworks that have influenced modern Philippine politics. The U.S. influence extends beyond historical governance structures, playing a role in many contemporary political trends like the global rise of populism. In the U.S., the populist rhetoric of leaders such as Donald Trump has polarized societies and emphasized nationalism, echoing similar dynamics worldwide. The colonial roots of Philippine governance shaped not only its political systems but also created an environment where global trends like populism, which revolves around the idea of representing ordinary people while standing against a perceived "elite," can thrive. Leaders like former President Rodrigo Duterte, whose populist appeal hinges on anti-elitist, law-and-order rhetoric, which was wholly different from Trump’s more class- and race-based rhetoric. Duterte also made use of U.S.-style media campaigns, social media, and polarization tactics, all of which have heavily influenced Philippine electoral strategies. Understanding these connections is crucial for analyzing how external influences and local dynamics continue to influence Philippine political activity and governance.
Historically, the U.S. has portrayed itself as a global proponent of democracy and human rights. Through organizations like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, U.S. administrations have tied aid packages to governance reforms, judicial independence, and anti-corruption initiatives. A U.S. administration prioritizing the promotion of democracy can exert pressure on allied nations, including the Philippines, to adhere to these principles. For instance, during the Obama administration, U.S.-Philippines relations were marked by a strong emphasis on human rights. Conditional aid programs under the Millennium Challenge Corporation incentivized Philippine governance reforms, particularly in transparency and anti-corruption measures. However, a contrasting approach emerged during the Trump administration, which prioritized non-interference and transactional diplomacy. These shifts highlight how U.S. election outcomes can suddenly recalibrate the Philippines' governance priorities. A U.S. administration with a strong focus on human rights can influence Philippine policies on contentious issues such as press freedom and judicial independence. For example, under President Rodrigo Duterte, U.S. concerns about extrajudicial killings in the war on drugs prompted international scrutiny and localized advocacy for reform. When U.S. leadership aligns with democratic principles, it strengthens the legitimacy of local human rights defenders and institutions. Historically, U.S. conditional aid has catalyzed Philippine governance reforms. Programs like the Partnership for Growth under USAID aimed to reduce barriers to economic growth by improving governance. These precedents suggest that U.S. electoral outcomes have a tangible impact on the Philippines, particularly in periods where U.S. democracy promotion aligns with Philippine reform efforts.
The United States has long held a hegemonic role in global politics, shaping the post-World War II world order through its military strength, economic influence, and leadership in international institutions. However, this unipolar dominance is increasingly challenged by the emergence of a multipolar world order. Rising powers such as China, with its Belt and Road Initiative and military expansion, and Russia, asserting itself in regions like Ukraine and the Middle East, present alternative centers of influence. Additionally, regional powers like India and Brazil, along with multilateral organizations like BRICS, seek to redefine global governance to reflect diverse interests. For the Philippines, these shifts hold significant implications. Historically, the Philippines has maintained a strategic alliance with the U.S., benefiting from military support and economic aid. However, a multipolar world presents both opportunities and challenges. While it diversifies foreign policy options, such as closer ties with China through infrastructure investments, it also raises sovereignty concerns, especially regarding ongoing tensions around the West Philippine Sea. Philippine politics may increasingly pivot toward balancing relationships between major powers, navigating between economic partnerships and geopolitical risks. Ultimately, a declining U.S. monopoly on global order could push the Philippines to adopt a more pragmatic and independent foreign policy, ensuring its interests in an evolving global landscape.
Despite this, most Philippine leaders often still tailor their political rhetoric to align with U.S. foreign policy trends, influenced by our long-standing historical ties. For example, the post-Marcos era saw the Philippines embracing a pro-democracy narrative, partly influenced by the U.S.'s strong emphasis on democratic transitions during the Cold War's conclusion. Similarly, during the Obama administration, Philippine leaders emphasized shared democratic values to maintain favorable relations, particularly in the face of China's growing influence. On the other hand, Duterte's pivot to China can also be aligned with the Trump administration's transactional diplomacy. Duterte’s narrative of resisting Western interference echoed Trump’s foreign policy ethos, demonstrating how Philippine leaders can calibrate their positions to align with or counteract U.S. leadership. The U.S. administration's stance also often influences the framing of governance issues in Philippine politics. Anti-corruption campaigns, judicial reforms, and press freedom initiatives gain traction when U.S. leadership underscores their importance. Conversely, a U.S. administration deprioritizing these themes can embolden Philippine leaders to downplay such issues, as observed during Duterte’s tenure. Philippine leaders have historically shifted their positions to maintain favorable relations with the U.S. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's anti-terrorism stance post-9/11 aligned closely with the Bush administration's priorities, securing military aid and strengthening U.S.-Philippines relations. Similarly, Benigno Aquino III’s focus on good governance and transparency resonated with Obama’s emphasis on democracy promotion, reinforcing bilateral ties. Personal leadership, however, also plays a significant role in shaping foreign policy decisions, as individual leaders bring their unique visions, priorities, and strategies to the table. Most recently, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has had a significant shift back to stronger ties with the United States, marking a shift from Duterte’s pro-China stance. Emphasizing the Mutual Defense Treaty and expanding joint military exercises, Marcos Jr. has sought to reinforce security cooperation amid rising tensions in the West Philippine Sea. His administration has also approved increased U.S. access to Philippine military bases under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), signaling a renewed commitment to the alliance. While maintaining economic ties with China, Marcos Jr.’s foreign policy reflects a balancing act, leveraging U.S. support for defense and regional stability while cautiously managing relations with Beijing.
The outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential elections will likely influence the campaign strategies of Philippine politicians in the upcoming 2025 elections, as the subsequent requests will have an effect on domestic policies and national security. Candidates may align themselves with U.S. policies on governance and foreign affairs, emphasizing democratic values to gain credibility among voters. Alternatively, candidates opposing U.S. influence may adopt a nationalist rhetoric, presenting themselves as champions of Philippine sovereignty. U.S.-Philippines relations are expected to become a key issue in the 2025 elections. Candidates may leverage their alignment (or opposition) to U.S. policies to gain political advantage, particularly on topics like human rights, military cooperation, and economic aid. For instance, pro-U.S. candidates might highlight the benefits of continued bilateral cooperation, while critics could question the Philippines’ dependency on American policies. The Filipino electorate, particularly Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) and sectors reliant on U.S.-Philippines relations, such as business process outsourcing (BPO), may play a pivotal role in shaping election outcomes. For instance, OFWs in the U.S. are directly influenced by American immigration and labor policies, making the U.S.-Philippines relations a personal concern. Similarly, the BPO industry, a cornerstone of the Philippine economy, relies on stable U.S. economic and political conditions, further underscoring the interconnectedness of the two nations' political landscapes.
Overall, the U.S. elections and their ripple effects on Philippine governance and political alignments highlight the interconnectedness of global and domestic politics. U.S. democracy promotion initiatives can catalyze governance reforms in the Philippines, influencing policies on human rights, judicial independence, and press freedom. Simultaneously, Philippine leaders often adapt their political rhetoric to align with or resist U.S. foreign policy trends, shaping domestic discourse and political strategies. Approaching the upcoming 2025 elections, understanding the dynamics of the U.S.-Philippines bilateral relations become particularly important for voters. The outcomes of the 2024 U.S. presidential elections may influence campaign strategies, voter behavior, and the framing of key national issues. However, while these international factors affect Philippine politics, they cannot fully explain its complexities. Local issues, historical contexts, and internal power dynamics remain equally, if not more, significant, but recognizing the nuanced impact of U.S.-Philippines relations empowers Filipino voters to critically assess how foreign policy narratives intersect with domestic priorities. This awareness is essential for making informed electoral decisions that reflect both the nation's sovereignty and its role in an increasingly interconnected world. And as the 2025 elections quickly draw nearer and nearer, how will you make your decision?
Commentaires