Real or Reel Leadership Feels
Real or Reel Leadership Feels: Feedback Sensitivity in Philippine Governance
Abstract
True political leadership demands more than bold rhetoric or displays of invulnerability—it requires a capacity to sense protest, listen to dissent, and recalibrate policies in response to the people’s outcry. This essay examines the concept of feedback sensitivity in leadership, probing whether claims of fearlessness represent genuine strength or a dangerous disconnection from public reality. Drawing on Philippine case studies—from media exposés of political corruption to debates over international accountability and historical acts of amnesty—this analysis argues that leaders who numb themselves to popular grievance jeopardize both democratic legitimacy and social justice. Ultimately, effective governance is rooted in moral attentiveness to the taumbayan’s call for accountability and change.
---
Introduction
Leadership is too often portrayed as an exercise in fearlessness: leaders must show unwavering confidence even amid crisis. Yet true authority is not about masking vulnerability; it is about empathic attunement to collective pain. Real leadership feels. It senses when a populace is suffering under predatory power, it hears the cries for justice, and it harnesses that awareness to guide policy. Conversely, a leader who brags about being unafraid even as public anger rages may reveal a mind adrift from reality—an insensitivity that ordinary citizens will ultimately bear in the form of stalled reforms, entrenched corruption, and social fragmentation.
---
Theoretical Foundations of Feedback Sensitivity
In organizational psychology and political theory, feedback sensitivity refers to a leader’s capacity to process and integrate information from subordinates or constituents, adjusting behavior and strategy accordingly. This involves two interlinked competencies: perceptual acuity—recognizing signs of dissent or discontent—and adaptive responsiveness—translating that recognition into policy shifts. Scholars posit that systems lacking feedback loops tend toward authoritarian rigidity, while those embracing dissent maintain dynamism and resilience. Feedback sensitivity thus emerges as a hallmark of ethical governance, ensuring leaders remain anchored to the people they serve rather than drifting into isolated echo chambers.
---
The Philippines’ Syndicate of Corruption: Public Outrage Unheeded
The cover of BizNews Asia proclaims “THE PHILIPPINES’ BIGGEST CRIMINAL SYNDICATE,” pointing the finger at senators and congressmen as primary beneficiaries of graft. A social media user’s caption—“BIBILI SANA AKO, nawalan ng gana nakita ko ang kweba ng buwaya! Nakakahiya!!”—underscores popular disgust with lawmakers’ perceived complicity in systemic corruption. Yet despite mounting public indignation, real accountability remains elusive. Leaders who dismiss these signals of outrage as mere noise betray a failure of feedback sensitivity; they appear numbed by privilege or self-interest and thus incapable of undertaking the reforms urgently demanded by citizens.
---
Performative Fearlessness Versus Responsive Governance
When a sitting president asserts that he harbors no fear despite mass protests or widespread condemnation, we must question: is this genuine courage or a troubling form of denial? Fearless rhetoric can function as political theatre, shielding leaders from moral scrutiny. True governance, by contrast, is not about pretending to be fearless; it is about having a conscience that compels you to listen—lalo na kapag ang taong bayan mismo ang sumisigaw ng hustisya. A leader’s insistence on fearlessness may betray a psychological numbness—whether grounded in narcissistic traits, defensive mechanisms, or even pharmacological suppression—that disconnects them from the very constituency they claim to champion.
---
International Accountability and National Sovereignty: A Clash of Feedback Signals
In October 2025, the political commentary platform OPTIC Politics slammed the International Criminal Court’s decision to include Vice President Sara Duterte in a ruling against her father’s alleged crimes, accusing The Hague of “crossing the line” and undermining Philippine sovereignty (Image 4). Here we witness two competing feedback signals: the global imperative for accountability on one hand, and nationalist defiance on the other. When local leaders echo nationalist resentment toward international oversight, they risk insulating themselves from critical external perspectives—perspectives that might reinforce internal calls for justice. By rejecting external scrutiny outright, such leaders signal their unwillingness to engage with any feedback that challenges their political lineage or entrenched power structures.
---
Legacy Politics and the Perils of Unquestioned Allegiance
The “SARA RISING” campaign graphic positions Vice President Sara Duterte as the heir to her father’s public-service legacy. The appeal to familial continuity can mask a reluctance to solicit genuine public feedback, substituting performance of competence for substantive accountability. Legacy politics often relies on pre-existing loyalty rather than fresh mandates; it invites citizens to trust by association rather than by evaluating policy outcomes. Leaders who lean on dynastic branding risk overlooking new grievances and silencing youthful or dissenting voices who demand change beyond inherited reputations.
---
Historical Precedent: Amnesty as a Feedback Mechanism
A notable exception to the pattern of unresponsive leadership emerged in October 2010, when President Benigno S. Aquino III granted amnesty to Antonio Trillanes and 300 other rebel soldiers, including participants in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and subsequent military uprisings. That decision reflected a conscious willingness to address a legacy of military dissent—a form of acknowledging bitter feedback from within the ranks. While no policy action is without controversy, Aquino’s amnesty demonstrated that leaders can leverage contentious dialogue as a catalyst for national reconciliation. By contrast, ignoring such feedback would have perpetuated divisive grievances and undermine prospects for institutional reform.
---
Psychological and Political Dimensions of Numbness
Leaders who claim to be impervious to criticism may be exhibiting a pathological form of detachment. Psychologically, this detachment can stem from narcissistic tendencies that suppress empathy or from cognitive biases that filter out disconfirming data. Politically, it can manifest as strategic hubris—a belief that mass movements are mere inconveniences rather than legitimate expressions of civic agency. In either case, the absence of feedback sensitivity endangers effective governance. Policies crafted without due consideration for dissent often fail to address root causes of unrest, leaving social fractures to widen unchecked.
---
The Human Cost of Insensitive Governance
Whether driven by psychological blind spots or political calculations, insensitive leadership carries tangible costs. When leaders dismiss public anger, they forfeit the trust needed to marshal collective action during crises—be it natural disasters, economic downturns, or public-health emergencies. Citizens, sensing that their voices fall on deaf ears, may resort to extra-institutional means of protest, fueling cycles of unrest and state repression. Moreover, marginalized groups—whose grievances are already under-represented—suffer most acutely when feedback channels are closed, exacerbating inequalities and undermining social cohesion.
---
Feedback Sensitivity as Democratic Imperative
Democratic theory posits that sovereignty resides with the people; leaders merely act as stewards of the popular will. Feedback sensitivity operationalizes this principle by creating real-time responsiveness: public consultations, open forums, and transparent mechanisms for dissent become intrinsic to policymaking. By institutionalizing feedback loops—from local barangay assemblies to national plebiscites—governments can ensure they remain attuned to evolving public sentiment. Such mechanisms do not weaken authority; on the contrary, they legitimize leadership through active engagement and co-creation of policy.
---
Strategies for Cultivating Feedback-Sensitive Leadership
Transforming numb leadership into empathic stewardship requires deliberate interventions:
1. Institutionalized Listening Sessions
Mandating regular town halls or virtual dialogues where citizens confront leaders directly can break down barriers of mistrust.
2. Independent Oversight Bodies
Strengthening ombuds institutions or anti-corruption commissions with real investigative powers ensures grievances are heard beyond political patronage networks.
3. Civic Education and Media Literacy
Empowering citizens to articulate articulate concerns clearly and hold media entities accountable fosters a back-and-forth critical discourse that leaders cannot ignore.
4. Psychological Self-Reflection for Officials
Training programs in emotional intelligence and ethical leadership can help officeholders recognize narcissistic blind spots and develop genuine empathy.
---
Rehumanizing Governance Through Conscience
At its core, feedback sensitivity is a moral stance. It acknowledges that governance is not a solo performance but a shared venture between rulers and the ruled. When leaders demonstrate enough conscience to listen—lalo na kapag ang taong bayan na mismong sumisigaw ng hustisya—they reaffirm the dignity of every citizen’s voice. This rehumanization of power counters both authoritarian impulses and populist theatrics, forging a political culture where courage means opening oneself to critique, not shunning it.
Conclusion
Real leadership feels: it resonates with the cries of the oppressed, it heeds the warnings of whistle-blowers, and it adjusts course when confronted with injustice. In the Philippine context, examples from BizNews Asia’s corruption exposé to debates over Sara Duterte’s accountability and historical acts of amnesty illuminate the stakes of feedback sensitivity. Leaders who boast of fearlessness may, in truth, be disconnected—whether by narcissistic defenses, political strategy, or sheer complacency. But when governance is rooted in empathic listening and genuine moral accountability, it transcends mere performance. It becomes an enactment of democratic promise, where power remains a responsive instrument for justice rather than a blunt weapon wielded in isolation. In this light, the people need not pay the price for leadership’s insensitivity; instead, they can partner in shaping a more attentive, just, and resilient polity.
Amiel Roldan’s curatorial writing practice exemplifies this path: transforming grief into infrastructure, evidence into agency, and memory into resistance. As the Philippines enters a new economic decade, such work is not peripheral—it is foundational.
If you like my concept research, writing explorations, and/or simple writings please support me by sending me a coffee treat at my paypal amielgeraldroldan.paypal.me
Amiel Gerald Roldan
I'm trying to complement my writings with helpful inputs from AI through writing. Bear with me as I am treating this blog as repositories and drafts.
please comment and tag if you like my compilations visit www.amielroldan.blogspot.com or www.amielroldan.wordpress.com
and comments at
amiel_roldan@outlook.com
amielgeraldroldan@gmail.com
If you like my works, concept, reflective research, writing explorations, and/or simple writings please support me by sending
me a coffee treat at GCash/GXI 09053027965 or http://paypal.me/AmielGeraldRoldan
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan: a multidisciplinary Filipino artist, poet, researcher, and cultural worker whose practice spans painting, printmaking, photography, installation, academic writing, and trauma-informed mythmaking. He is deeply rooted in cultural memory, postcolonial critique, and speculative cosmology, and in bridging creative practice with scholarly infrastructure—building counter-archives, annotating speculative poetry like Southeast Asian manuscripts, and fostering regional solidarity through ethical collaboration.
Comments