Pathways and Pitfalls 

The past several months have been dizzying for the “pink movement”. Leading up to the May elections, the topic of conversation was whether the movement was still alive. In an online forum sponsored by Build Pilipinas on February 24, the consensus among the resource persons was that the movement was not dead, but it was fragmented and rudderless. 

Nevertheless, the forum ended with the conviction that the pink movement must continue to strengthen its ranks, because — given the volatility of politics — the pro-democracy forces must be prepared to seize any opportunities presented by circumstances. A number of groups within the broad reform movement then focused their efforts on supporting the senatorial campaigns of Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan as well as the party list bid of Leila de Lima under the Mamamayang Liberal (ML) banner. Some also supported the Akbayan party list. 

It turned out to be a dream election for the pro-democracy forces, as these candidates exceeded the most optimistic of projections. Aquino garnered the second most votes of all senatorial candidates while Pangilinan came in at #5. Akbayan topped the party list election, and ML finished 14th.

Amidst the euphoria, some of the reasons for the victory became apparent. There was clearly a vote for good governance, a “woke” vote. This is seen not only in the victories of Bam, Kiko, Akbayan, and ML, but in the defeat of many showbiz personalities and even some political dynasties. There was also a strong youth vote, a vote associated with a desire for change. The youth now comprise 60% of the electorate.  Much credit also goes to the strong, committed campaign machinery of both Bam and Kiko, as well as their disciplined and strategic messaging. Their campaigns remained focused on a fundamental issue that impacts the poor — education for Bam and agriculture for Kiko.

But, as everyone knows, this election was not all (pink) roses. The midterm elections appeared to deliver a strong vote of confidence to the Dutertes, as the latter’s partisans fared very well in the polls, led by Bong Go as the topnotcher, Bato de la Rosa at #3, Rodante Marcoleta broke through (#6), and Imee Marcos finished 12th. Apparently, many people still support the Davao dynasty, and perhaps many were indignant that “Tatay Digong” was arrested and detained by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity.  

Also, things get more complex when we begin to scrutinize the various other factors that helped Bam and Kiko achieve the large number of votes that they did. In varying degrees, the two received support from religious movements, local officials, other influentials, and maybe even the Marcos administration. Many suspect that the support from these groups did not come without corresponding concessions. In addition, Bam and Kiko’s disciplined messaging meant that they did not go “off-script” to support the Sara Duterte impeachment process or even criticize the Dutertes in any way. Bam and Kiko have even joined the majority in Congress, thus “abandoning” Risa Hontiveros and associating themselves with the Duterte diehard senators. This means that they also aligned themselves with re-elected Senate President Chiz Escudero, who, in the eyes of many, is the main architect of the “constitutional creativity” that protects Sara Duterte from the embarrassment of an impeachment trial.

Thus, for some progressives, Senators Aquino and Pangilinan have strayed from the reformist path, veering towards the transactional politics of the status quo.  

The more pragmatic segments of the movement argue that Bam and Kiko have actually laid out a pathway on how progressive candidates can achieve electoral victory coming from a position of weakness (i.e., poor initial election survey results and lack of resources). The main argument is that if progressives want to win elections and translate their agenda into action, they have to utilize different strategies to widen their base of support. Bam and Kiko illustrate that this includes reaching out to different groups in society, responding to “gut issues” of the masses, and avoiding making too many enemies while delivering a clear, consistent message. The “pragmatists” understand Bam and Kiko’s decision to join the majority because they need the Senate committee chairmanships (education and agriculture, respectively) in order to bring significant, concrete benefits to the poor and deliver on campaign promises. 

For many pragmatists, the “red line” is the impeachment case of Sara Duterte, meaning that if Bam and Kiko were to support its dismissal, they would lose all credibility. In the Senate, the two have since articulated the position that a trial of Sara Duterte must be held.

Regardless of where one stands on the Bam and Kiko debate, it is important for the pink movement to recognize this moment as an inflection and reflection point. It is a moment that is both exhilarating and sobering.  It is a moment where action, if not managed carefully, may expose latent fault lines within the movement. 

It is imperative that the Kakampink reflect on the pathway illuminated by Bam and Kiko, and analyze how it translates to the 2028 presidential election, while navigating the numerous pitfalls that come with the quest for power. The movement now has the potential to be a dominant force. The days of irrelevance are long gone — and so are the days of innocence. By design and by circumstance, the pink movement has come of age.