Blaming the Poor for Political Stagnation

December 13, 2025

Blaming the poor for political stagnation is a rhetorical shortcut that obscures structural failures: entrenched patronage, elite capture, and institutional weakness—real reform historically emerges from organized, resourced minorities rather than an exhausted working class. 

Argument and Framing 

The aphorism that "they keep voting for the same people" functions as a moralizing shorthand that relocates responsibility from political structures to individual moral failure. This rhetorical move simplifies complexage, coercion, and informational asymmetry into a blameworthy habit of the poor. In the Philippine case, long-standing patterns of bossism and oligarchic patrimonialism show how electoral behavior is embedded in clientelist networks that reward short-term material exchange over programmatic policy, making voting choices intelligible rather than irrational. 

Structural Constraints on Political Agency 

Voting under clientelism is not merely a matter of preference but of survival and social embeddedness. Patron-client ties, pork-barrel politics, and weak party institutionalization create incentives for voters to prioritize immediate material returns and social obligations are durable: they reproduce dependency, fragment collective action, and limit the reach of civic education. Political scientists describe this as a system where affluent patrons convert resources into political loyalty, thereby insulating elites from accountability and making systemic reform difficult without disrupting the resource flows that sustain local power brokers. 

Who Makes Reform Happen? 

Historical patterns across polities suggest that transformative reforms rarely originate from a uniformly exhausted working class. Instead, informed minorities—intellectuals, organized middle classes, reformist elites, and coalition-building activists—have often supplied the clarity, resources, and institutional leverage necessary for change. The Philippines' own People Power moment illustrates this dynamic: mass mobilization mattered, but it was catalyzed and sustained by networks of opposition elites, church organizations, and middle-class actors who could coordinate, communicate, and exploit fissures within the ruling coalition. This is not to diminish popular agency; rather, it is to emphasize that reform requires both mass legitimacy and concentrated capacity. 

Epistemic and Material Preconditions 

Two preconditions distinguish successful reformers from exhausted majorities. First, epistemic clarity—a shared narrative and strategic vision—allows actors to translate grievances into coherent demands. Second, material capacity—access to media, funding, legal expertise, and organizational infrastructure—permits sustained pressure and institutional navigation. Without these, protest dissipates or is co-opted by patronage networks. The informed minority's advantage lies in converting diffuse discontent into targeted institutional interventions that outlast episodic mobilization. 

Implications for Democratic Practice 

If blaming the poor is a political shortcut, then policy and civic strategy must reverse the gesture: strengthen public goods, reduce clientelist incentives, and build institutional channels for accountability. This entails electoral reform, transparency in public finance, and investments in civic education that are not merely moralizing but structural. It also requires cultivating cross-class coalitions that combine grassroots legitimacy with organizational capacity. 

Risks and Limits 

Reform driven solely by elites risks technocratic capture and legitimacy deficits; reform without material safeguards can deepen inequality. Conversely, romanticizing the working class as the sole agent of change ignores the practical necessity of resources and coordination. Effective transformation therefore demands both popular mobilization and empowered, informed minorities capable of institutional translation. 

Conclusion 

Blaming the poor simplifies a political pathology that is fundamentally structural. Real reform is not the spontaneous product of exhaustion but the outcome of organized clarity and capacity—a lesson the Philippines and comparative history repeatedly confirm. To move beyond the shortcut, politics must reconfigure incentives so that voting becomes an expression of programmatic choice rather than a survival calculus.

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. 

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 

Amiel Gerald A. Roldan: a multidisciplinary Filipino artist, poet, researcher, and cultural worker whose practice spans painting, printmaking, photography, installation, and writing. He is deeply rooted in cultural memory, postcolonial critique, and in bridging creative practice with scholarly infrastructure—building counter-archives, annotating speculative poetry like Southeast Asian manuscripts, and fostering regional solidarity through ethical art collaboration.

Recent show at ILOMOCA

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qUTDdEMD 

https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go?messageThreadUrn=urn%3Ali%3AmessageThreadUrn%3A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressenza.com%2F2025%2F05%2Fcultural-workers-not-creative-ilomoca-may-16-2025%2F&trk=flagship-messaging-android