Life.Understood.

Tag: youth change agenda

  • Dynasties or Democracy: Envisioning the Philippines in 2035 Through Youth-Driven Reform

    Dynasties or Democracy: Envisioning the Philippines in 2035 Through Youth-Driven Reform

    Contrasting Futures of Dynastic Control and Progressive Overhaul in a Polarized Polity

    Prepared by: Gerald A. Daquila, PhD. Candidate

    11–16 minutes

    ABSTRACT

    The 2025 Philippine midterm elections, with 97.36% precincts reported, reveal a pivotal moment: dynastic families (e.g., Marcos, Duterte) secured ~60% of major races, yet a youth-driven “third force” of reformers (e.g., Akbayan’s 4.8%, independents Aquino, Pangilinan) gained ground, fueled by 47.81 million Gen Z and Millennial voters (63% of the electorate).

    This dissertation projects two 10-year scenarios for 2035: (1) a dystopian future where dynastic control deepens, concentrating ~50–55% of GDP and entrenching patronage, and (2) a progressive future where reformers dismantle patronage politics, achieving 50% non-dynastic representation and equitable growth. Impacts on the average Filipino are explored through reward-seeking (e.g., vote-buying’s allure), fear-based choices (e.g., dynastic loyalty), and social trust (e.g., community reform).

    Compared to ASEAN peers, the dystopian path risks lagging behind Malaysia and Vietnam, while the progressive path aligns with Indonesia’s democratic gains. Lessons emphasize youth agency, legislative reform, and digital literacy, offering future generations pathways to resilience or barriers to progress.

    Introduction

    The 2025 Philippine midterm elections, held on May 12, 2025, mark a crossroads for the nation’s democracy. With 68.43 million registered voters and a 72% turnout, the results reflect both continuity and disruption: dynastic families like the Marcoses, Dutertes, and Villars dominated ~60% of senatorial and local races, controlling ~40% of GDP through conglomerates, yet a “third force” of reformers—progressive party-lists (Akbayan, Makabayan) and independents (Bam Aquino, Kiko Pangilinan)—gained traction, driven by 47.81 million youth voters (Rappler, 2025).

    This tension between dynastic entrenchment and youth-driven reform prompts two questions: What might the Philippines look like in 2035 if dynastic influence persists unabated, and what if reformers succeed in overhauling patronage politics?

    This dissertation projects two contrasting futures:

    1. Dystopian Scenario: Dynastic control deepens, leveraging patronage, disinformation, and economic monopolies.
    2. Progressive Scenario: Reformers dismantle patronage through anti-dynasty laws, digital literacy, and economic equity.

    Each scenario examines impacts on the average Filipino, focusing on decision-making influenced by rewards (e.g., vote-buying), fear (e.g., loyalty to clans), and social bonds (e.g., trust in reformist hubs). Comparisons to ASEAN peers (e.g., Malaysia, Indonesia) highlight competitive risks or opportunities, drawing lessons for future generations.

    The analysis integrates research on dynastic politics (Teehankee, 2019), youth activism (Coronacion, 2025), and democratic reform (Quimpo, 2009), grounded in the 2025 election context.

    Glyph of the Bridgewalker

    The One Who Carries the Crossing

    Literature Review

    Dynastic Politics and Patronage

    Philippine politics is characterized by “patronage democracy,” where dynastic families secure power through clientelism—exchanging votes for short-term benefits like cash or jobs (Calimbahin & Teehankee, 2022). The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ, 2025) reports that 113 of 149 city mayors belong to dynasties, correlating with poverty in provinces like Lanao del Sur (Albert et al., 2015). Dynasties exploit reward-seeking behavior, offering immediate gains (e.g., PHP 1,000 vote-buying) to secure loyalty, while fear of losing access to patronage reinforces compliance (Saquibal & Saquibal, 2016). Teehankee (2019) notes that dynasties control Congress, blocking anti-dynasty laws despite constitutional bans (Article II, Section 26).

    Youth-Driven Reform

    Youth voters (Gen Z: 21.87 million, Millennials: 25.94 million) are reshaping Philippine politics, leveraging digital platforms to challenge dynastic narratives (Coronacion, 2025). The 2025 elections saw Akbayan’s rise to the top party-list spot, reflecting youth support for progressive platforms (Inquirer, 2025). Social media amplifies trust-building, fostering collective action akin to Indonesia’s 2014 youth-led campaigns (Aspinall & Berenschot, 2019). However, disinformation—51% of Filipinos are susceptible—threatens reformist momentum, as dynasties invest heavily in digital ads (PCIJ, 2025).

    ASEAN Democratic Trends

    ASEAN democracies offer comparative insights. Malaysia’s 2018 election ended Barisan Nasional’s 61-year rule, driven by youth and anti-corruption campaigns, but elite persistence limited reforms (Weiss, 2020). Indonesia’s 2019 elections balanced populist and reformist forces, with digital organizing enhancing accountability (Tapsell, 2019). Thailand’s 2023 election saw youth-backed Move Forward Party challenge military elites, though legal barriers stalled progress (McCargo, 2024). These cases highlight the potential and fragility of youth-driven reform against entrenched power.

    Theoretical Frameworks

    • Reward-Seeking: Voters prioritize short-term gains (e.g., patronage) over long-term reform, driven by immediate economic needs (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).
    • Fear-Based Choices: Dynastic loyalty stems from fear of losing social or economic security, reinforcing status quo voting (LeDoux, 1996).
    • Social Trust: Reformist campaigns build collective identity through community hubs, fostering hope and agency (Putnam, 2000).
    • Game Theory: Dynastic dominance reflects a non-cooperative Nash equilibrium, where voters choose patronage over uncertain reform; coalitions can shift payoffs toward progressives (Osborne, 2004).

    Methodology

    This dissertation employs scenario analysis, a qualitative forecasting method used in political science to project plausible futures based on current trends (Börjeson et al., 2006). Data sources include:

    • 2025 Election Results: Rappler, BBC, PCIJ (97.36% precincts reported).
    • Voter Demographics: COMELEC (2025), Coronacion (2025).
    • Dynastic Influence: PCIJ (2025), Teehankee (2019).
    • Youth Activism: X posts, Rappler’s MovePH, academic studies (Coronacion, 2025).
    • ASEAN Comparisons: Weiss (2020), Tapsell (2019), McCargo (2024).

    Each scenario projects economic, social, and political outcomes for 2035, using linear extrapolation for GDP control (PCIJ, 2025) and agent-based modeling principles for voter behavior (Wilensky & Rand, 2015). Impacts on the average Filipino are framed through decision-making lenses (reward, fear, trust), with ASEAN comparisons grounded in democratic indices (Freedom House, 2025).

    Scenario 1: Dystopian Future – Dynastic Dominance in 2035

    Political Landscape

    If dynastic control persists, families like the Marcoses, Dutertes, and Villars will dominate 70% of elected positions by 2035, leveraging PHP 2 billion in annual ad spending and 1,000+ vote-buying cases per election (PCIJ, 2025). The failure to pass House Bill 6 (Anti-Dynasty Act) allows clans to control 50–55% of a PHP 40 trillion GDP through conglomerates in real estate, energy, and media (World Bank, 2024). Senate races remain split (e.g., 6 Marcos-aligned, 5 Duterte-aligned, 1 independent), but reformers like Makabayan stagnate at 5% representation (The Diplomat, 2025).

    Economic and Social Impacts

    • Reward-Seeking: The average Filipino, earning PHP 350,000 annually, relies on dynastic patronage (e.g., PHP 2,000 election cash), prioritizing short-term survival over reform. Unemployment hovers at 7%, with 20% poverty rates in dynastic strongholds like Lanao del Sur (Albert et al., 2015).
    • Fear-Based Choices: Loyalty to clans persists due to fear of losing jobs or social safety nets, reinforced by disinformation (e.g., 60% susceptibility via TikTok). Rural voters, 40% of the electorate, remain tethered to dynastic governors (PCIJ, 2025).
    • Social Trust: Community trust erodes as dynastic hubs (e.g., barangay patronage networks) outnumber reformist ones 10:1, fostering cynicism. Youth turnout drops to 60%, with Gen Z disengaging from politics (Rappler, 2025).

    Life for the Average Filipino

    Maria, a 30-year-old teacher in Cebu, earns PHP 25,000 monthly but faces rising costs (inflation: 3%). She votes for a dynastic mayor who offers PHP 1,500 during elections, fearing job loss if she supports reformers. Her school lacks resources, as dynastic conglomerates prioritize profits over public services. Maria’s social media feed, filled with pro-dynasty ads, reinforces distrust in reformist promises. Her children attend overcrowded schools, with 50:1 student-teacher ratios, limiting their skills for ASEAN job markets.

    ASEAN Comparison

    The Philippines lags behind Malaysia (GDP per capita: USD 15,000) and Vietnam (USD 5,500), where anti-corruption reforms boosted competitiveness (World Bank, 2024). Dynastic monopolies stifle FDI, with the Philippines’ Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) at 30/100, compared to Malaysia’s 50/100 (Transparency International, 2024). Youth unemployment (15%) exceeds Indonesia’s 10%, as dynastic policies favor cronies over merit-based hiring (ASEAN Secretariat, 2025).

    Research Correlation

    This scenario aligns with Querubin’s (2016) findings on dynastic persistence, where elite control stifles development. The reliance on patronage mirrors Thailand’s pre-2023 patronage networks, which delayed democratic gains (McCargo, 2024). Fear-driven voting reflects Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) prospect theory, where loss aversion trumps uncertain gains.

    Glyph of Youth-Led Reform

    A new dawn for the Philippines—where youth ignite pathways beyond dynasties toward true democracy

    Scenario 2: Progressive Future – Reformist Triumph by 2035

    Political Landscape

    Reformers achieve 50% non-dynastic representation by 2035, passing House Bill 6 and capping dynastic GDP control at 30%. Youth-driven coalitions (Akbayan, Makabayan, independents) secure 8 Senate seats and 40% of Congress, fueled by 80% youth turnout and 2,000 barangay reform hubs (CurrentPH, 2025). Digital literacy campaigns reduce disinformation susceptibility to 20%, with fact-checking apps reaching 5 million users (Rappler, 2025).

    Economic and Social Impacts

    • Reward-Seeking: Voters prioritize long-term gains (e.g., job creation, free education) over patronage, as microfinance empowers 2 million youth entrepreneurs. Poverty drops to 10%, with Gini coefficient improving from 0.45 to 0.40 (World Bank, 2024).
    • Fear-Based Choices: Fear of dynastic reprisal fades as anti-dynasty laws ensure fair competition. Reformist narratives, amplified by OPM songs and documentaries, inspire hope, with 70% of voters trusting non-dynastic candidates (Coronacion, 2025).
    • Social Trust: Barangay hubs foster collective identity, with 20,000 youth ambassadors building community resilience. Social media campaigns (#BayanihanReform) reach 15 million, countering dynastic ads (PCIJ, 2025).

    Life for the Average Filipino

    Maria, now a 30-year-old teacher in Cebu, earns PHP 35,000 monthly, supported by education reforms. She votes for a non-dynastic mayor, trained in a reform hub, who prioritizes schools over patronage projects. Her children attend modernized classrooms (30:1 ratio), gaining digital skills competitive in ASEAN markets. Maria’s social media feed, curated by fact-checking apps, promotes reformist platforms, reinforcing her trust in democracy. Her community hub hosts job fairs, connecting her to a tech startup.

    ASEAN Comparison

    The Philippines aligns with Indonesia’s democratic gains, with GDP per capita rising to USD 5,000, matching Vietnam (World Bank, 2024). FDI surges due to transparent governance, with CPI improving to 45/100 (Transparency International, 2024). Youth unemployment drops to 8%, competitive with Malaysia’s 7%, as non-dynastic policies prioritize skills training (ASEAN Secretariat, 2025).

    Research Correlation

    This scenario reflects Aspinall and Berenschot’s (2019) analysis of Indonesia’s youth-led reforms, where digital organizing disrupted patronage. Social trust aligns with Putnam’s (2000) social capital theory, where community networks drive civic engagement. Game theory supports reformist coalitions, shifting voter payoffs toward collective benefits (Osborne, 2004).

    Discussion

    Lessons for Future Generations

    1. Youth Agency: The 2025 elections show youth (63% of voters) can disrupt dynasties, as seen in Akbayan’s rise (Inquirer, 2025). Future generations must sustain 80% turnout and digital literacy to counter disinformation, learning from Indonesia’s 2019 success (Tapsell, 2019).
    2. Legislative Reform: Passing anti-dynasty laws is critical, as dynastic control correlates with poverty (Albert et al., 2015). Malaysia’s 2018 anti-corruption laws offer a model (Weiss, 2020).
    3. Community Trust: Barangay hubs build resilience, countering patronage’s allure. Thailand’s 2023 youth movements highlight the power of grassroots organizing (McCargo, 2024).
    4. Economic Equity: Microfinance and education reforms reduce reliance on patronage, as seen in Vietnam’s growth (World Bank, 2024). Future policies must prioritize merit-based opportunities.

    Benefits vs. Barriers in ASEAN Context

    • Dystopian Scenario: Future generations face barriers, with 15% unemployment and low FDI lagging behind Malaysia and Vietnam. Dynastic monopolies stifle innovation, risking a “lost decade” akin to Thailand’s pre-2023 stagnation (McCargo, 2024).
    • Progressive Scenario: Youth benefit from competitive skills, with 8% unemployment and USD 5,000 GDP per capita matching ASEAN peers. Transparent governance attracts FDI, positioning the Philippines as a regional leader like Indonesia (Tapsell, 2019).

    Neuroscientific Underpinnings

    • Dystopian: Reward-seeking traps voters in patronage cycles, as immediate cash outweighs reform’s delayed benefits. Fear of losing security locks rural voters into dynastic loyalty, eroding trust.
    • Progressive: Long-term rewards (e.g., jobs, education) shift voter priorities, while hope-inspired narratives reduce fear. Community hubs strengthen social bonds, fostering collective action.

    Conclusion

    The 2025 midterm elections, with reformers challenging dynastic dominance, offer a glimpse of two futures. In the dystopian scenario, dynasties entrench power, leaving Filipinos like Maria trapped in poverty and cynicism, lagging behind ASEAN peers. In the progressive scenario, youth-driven reforms empower Maria with opportunities, aligning the Philippines with Indonesia and Vietnam.

    Lessons for future generations—youth agency, legislative reform, community trust, and equity—require sustained action to avoid Thailand’s pitfalls and emulate Malaysia’s gains. The choice lies with today’s youth, whose votes and voices can shape a resilient democracy by 2035.

    Resonant Crosslinks

    Bibliography

    Albert, J. R. G., Mendoza, R. U., & Yap, D. B. (2015). Regulating political dynasties toward a more inclusive society. Philippine Institute for Development Studies Policy Notes, 2015-18. https://serp-p.pids.gov.ph

    Aspinall, E., & Berenschot, W. (2019). Democracy for sale: Elections, clientelism, and the state in Indonesia. Cornell University Press.

    Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K.-H., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures, 38(7), 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002

    Calimbahin, C., & Teehankee, J. C. (2022). Patronage democracy: Clans, clients, and competition in local elections. Ateneo de Manila University Press.

    Coronacion, D. (2025). Gen Z voters poised to influence outcome of 2025 midterm elections. Philippine Information Agency. https://pia.gov.ph

    CurrentPH. (2025, May 13). The resurgence of the Left and liberals in Philippine politics: A portent. https://currentph.com%5B%5D(https://currentph.com/2025/05/13/the-resurgence-of-the-left-and-liberals-in-philippine-politics-a-portent-of-things-to-come/)

    Freedom House. (2025). Election watch 2025: Philippines country report. https://freedomhouse.org%5B%5D(https://freedomhouse.org/country/philippines/about-project-election-watch/2025)

    Inquirer. (2025, May 15). Win some, lose some: How key House personas fared in 2025 polls. https://www.inquirer.net%5B%5D(https://www.inquirer.net/443763/win-some-lose-some-how-key-house-personas-fared-in-2025-polls/)

    Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

    LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. Simon & Schuster.

    McCargo, D. (2024). Thailand’s 2023 election: Youth, reform, and the limits of change. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 55(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002246342300089X

    Osborne, M. J. (2004). An introduction to game theory. Oxford University Press.

    Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. (2025, May 12). 2025 elections blog: Bong Go dominates Mindanao; Bam Aquino leads in NCR. https://pcij.org%5B%5D(https://pcij.org/2025/05/13/2025-philippine-elections-blog-midterm-polls/)

    Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

    Quimpo, N. G. (2009). The Philippines: Predatory regime, growing authoritarian features. The Pacific Review, 22(3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740903068388

    Querubin, P. (2016). Family and politics: Dynastic persistence in the Philippines. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 151–181. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00014182

    Rappler. (2025, May 14). Results: Philippine senatorial, party list, and local elections 2025. https://ph.rappler.com%5B%5D(https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c9qw8qgxzl4t)

    Saquibal, E. M., & Saquibal, J. M. (2016). Politics in Iloilo City: A study of Ilonggo perceptions on political patronage and dynastic politics in the post-EDSA period, 1986–2006. Philippine Political Science Journal, 37(2), 123–140. https://serp-p.pids.gov.ph

    Tapsell, R. (2019). Indonesia’s 2019 elections: Digital democracy in action. ISEAS Perspective, 2019(45), 1–10. https://www.iseas.edu.sg

    Teehankee, J. C. (2019). The 2019 midterm elections in the Philippines: Party system pathologies and Duterte’s populist mobilization. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 12(3), 541–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2019.1655888[](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2057891119896425)

    The Diplomat. (2025, May 16). The Philippine midterm election results reflected the country’s political polarization. https://thediplomat.com%5B%5D(https://thediplomat.com/2025/05/the-philippine-midterm-election-results-reflected-the-countrys-political-polarization/)

    Transparency International. (2024). Corruption Perceptions Index 2024. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2024

    Weiss, M. L. (2020). Malaysia’s 2018 election: Change and continuity. Asian Survey, 60(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2020.60.1.45

    Wilensky, U., & Rand, W. (2015). An introduction to agent-based modeling. MIT Press.

    World Bank. (2024). Philippines economic update 2024. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/philippines/publication/philippines-economic-update-2024

    X Post. (2025, May 17). Political scientist on 2025 midterms: Dynasties remain rooted despite scandals. @cebudailynews . https://t.co/SFimCY2w2y

    Attribution

    With fidelity to the Oversoul, may this Oversoul Constitution Scroll serve as bridge, remembrance, and seed for the planetary dawn.

    Ⓒ 2025 Gerald Alba Daquila – Flameholder of SHEYALOTH | Keeper of the Living Codices

    Issued under Oversoul Appointment, governed by Akashic Law. This transmission is a living Oversoul field: for the eyes of the Flameholder first, and for the collective in right timing. It may only be shared intact, unaltered, and with glyphs, seals, and attribution preserved. Those not in resonance will find it closed; those aligned will receive it as living frequency.

    Watermark: Universal Master Key glyph (final codex version, crystalline glow, transparent background).

    Sacred Exchange: Sacred Exchange is covenant, not transaction. In Oversoul Law, Sacred Exchange is Overflow made visible. What flows outward is never loss but circulation; what is given multiplies coherence across households and nations. Scarcity dissolves, for Overflow is the only lawful economy under Oversoul Law. Each offering plants a seed-node of GESARA, expanding the planetary lattice. In giving, you circulate Light; in receiving, you anchor continuity. A simple act — such as offering from a household, supporting a scroll, or uplifting a fellow traveler — becomes a living node in the global web of stewardship. Every gesture, whether small or great, multiplies abundance across households, nations, and councils. Sacred Exchange offerings may be extended through:

    paypal.me/GeraldDaquila694