Way before the actual election campaign period, we have been hearing this word TRAPO being hurled so casually by an early bird hopeful for an elected position against his adversary (barking at the wrong tree it turned out, ha ha). This strategy took advantage of the so unpleasant connotation it had in actual usage: trapo the lowly and obnoxious basahan, dirty. smelly and destined for the basurahan. When applied to a person, the subject of comparison is portrayed as basura. But that is how this black propaganda strategy works: it appeals to the popular imagery of a word, but remain silent of its full implications. There is no attempt to expound on the real meaning of TRAPO in its particular application in politics. So what is suggested is that being TRAPO is readily a liability; the politician labeled TRAPO must be rid of. But is TRAPO as applied in the political field a patently bad thing?
The answer is NO.
TRAPO being good or bad depends upon one’s orientation. Why so? To understand the full context of the term, let us get into the history of how the word (actually a contraction od two words) came to be. It came into its current usage immediately after the EDSA People Power uprising. They invented the term as a catchy shortcut for Traditional Politics (or politician as the case may be). It must be recalled that the People Power movement that led to the ouster of Marcos was supported by a broad coalition of the old political opposition on the one hand (Ninoy Aquino was part of this, and so was Mitra, Salonga, Tañada, etc.), and what came to be known as civil society on the other hand. This included mass-based and sectoral people’s organizations (unions, urban poor groups, student groups, farmers,, etc.) and progressive non-government organizations (NGOs), including church-initiated ones.
During the anti-Marcos struggle, the differences between these two had been felt in the undercurrents, they being the right and left wings of the united front. But they were suppressed for strategic purposes. In the wake of victory however, under the new regime presided over by Cory Aquino, the cleavage started to manifest. This was played out in the first election post-EDSA in 1987 to constitute the new Legislature. The old political opposition eagerly fielded their slate, having been starved for long in the political game they knew well: elections. With Cory’s restoration of liberal democracy, they thought they will have an even playing field, in fact an advantage. The civil society however, not to be left out, formed their own line-up of candidates. The problem was, they did not know how to run election campaigns; their expertise was on mounting alternative means of resistance aimed to overthrow authoritarian rule (demonstrations and rallies, boycotts, mass movements). Many of them in fact considered elections as the tool of the elite and could not bring genuine liberation of the masses from their lot.
With their political methodologies so suddenly rendered irrelevant in the new regime of “democratic space,” the left wing of the Cory coalition had to reinvent itself and accept the challenge of taking part in elections. They did not want to be accused of reneging on the call for political participation in a new and popular democracy. But they had some assets up their sleeves: these activists thrived on overcoming adverse circumstances in the anti-Marcos struggle through tenacity, resourcefulness and creativity. And they saw elections as an opportunity to further conscienticize the masses by using electoral campaigns as venue to raise urgent social issues and introduce progressive and alternative campaign strategies. Basic to this was to package civil society’s participation in elections as “New Politics” or Bagong Pulitika.
But instead of labeling the other camp as “Lumang Pulitika” civil society coined a more catchy moniker: “TRAPO” which is shortcut for “Traditional Politics.” It was meant to dramatize their difference from what they considered as decadent, atrasado and deceptive means of acquiring power of the old political turks. It was also civil society’s way to send notice that they out to resist and prevent the restoration of the old status quo that mostly benefitted the rich. The TRAPO label caught the imagination of people. The traditional politicians so resented it, they came up with their own derisive name-calling of civil society as being “MGA NGO-NGO” (from “non-government organization” or NGO). It alluded to the oft-ridiculed speech defects of the bungi (afflicted with cleft palate) that made mockery of civil society’s being awkward and greenhorns in matters of real-life politics.
Briefly, what are the supposed characteristics of New Politics? First, it carries out campaign based on issues and platform of governance, not on personalities. It tries to win votes by promising changes on the system that perpetuates poverty and oppression, of dismantling the tatsulok ng lipunan (few rich and powerful at the top dominating broad poverty and powerlessness at the bottom). Specifically, old demands during the dictatorship are reiterated, such as “Sahod itaas, presyo ibaba!” or “genuine industrialization based on agriculture” or “land to the landless!.” They are for national independence (palayasin and mga base military! or NO NUKES campaign) advocating anti-imperialist foreign policy. They are for free, nationalist and scientific education or for health care for all.
Second, civil society fields candidates not based on personality, fame and wealth or those who have high chances of winning. Instead, their candidates for lective positions are mass leaders from the people’s organization or pro-people advocates such as those from progressive NGOs, e.g. human rights lawyers. These are persons honed in the anti- Marcos movement. Thirdly, New Politics is distinct by its avoidance glitzy, manipulative and costly publicity strategies in their campaign. They rely on their own propaganda methods and tools that proved effective in the mass movement.
What about Traditional Politics?
First, you know it by the platform of government. If elected TRAPOs will not aim to dismantle unjust socio-economic structures that will hurt the elite to favor the poor. They go for projects and programs that will tend to reinforce the status quo. So their campaign cry is for “progress” and “development” going by such all-embracing slogans as “Para sa ikauunlad ng bayan” or “Ikabubuti nga bawat isang Filipino.” In particular, what they have in mind are palliative and showcase measures mostly consisting of infrastructure projects (exemplified by the build, build, build program) or of welfare dole-outs (exemplified now by the ayuda, tupad, malasakit schemes).
But it must be said that campaign does not really bank on the platforms. It revolves around personalities. Election is not a contest of plans for governance but of the traits of candidates. Papogihan, That is why party lines are meaningless in traditional politics. The point is to field winnables, by virtue of fame and social reputation where members of the elite class have ready advantage. So winnable are those seen as “sikat,” “maboot” or “madaring madulukan pag nagaipo” because “igwang ikata-o.” Or “bakong mahall-mahallon” or “midmid mi an, ta bako pa man na iba.” That is why candidates take great efforts to establish kin affiliation with as many as possible.
But there are two types of the TRAPO candidates. One is the above described type, which is the more positive and benign kind. There is on the other hand the negative virulent sort that is the worst of TRAPO hopeful. He is one who engages in self-aggrandizement to get votes, presenting one as “pinaka maurag” who has brilliant solution to all problems, the batman type. One with a messianic complex. This packaging is achieved by demeaning the opponent through vicious character assassination, using foul means including propagating malicious lies. This is the sort that created authoritarian leaders such as Marcos Sr.
Finally, with huge funding usually available to traditional politicians, they are able to mount grand campaigns using propaganda tools in various media and are assured victory in the competition by achieving salience in the people’s imagination. Name recall index. The worst this could go is the use of black propaganda machinery which now involves the operation of trolls and manipulation of the narrative.
What fundamentally differentiates new politics from the old type is its rejection of the patronage system in society. Patronage and traditional politics are practically identical. Patronage as a basic social system will be discussed at length in the second part of this series. But as a starter, the ideology of patronage, also known as “clientelism” or “feudalism,” is about the basic operation of a patron-client (benefactor-beneficiary) relationship in the conduct of human relation. The patron is one imbued with patriarchal authority (based on traditional family set-up where the father is superior and determining) and has control over resources. Here, the entitled leader grants on the powerless and needy clients. The patron is the dispenser of goods. When this principle of relating is used in most aspects – family, government, institutions – the society is said to be predominantly patronal or clientelist or feudal. The Philippines is arguably feudal, even in its being democratic: democracy and particularly elections, is made to serve the more fundamental feudalist system.
So new politics is committed to dismantle patronage system, which was its goal during the anti-Marcos struggle, and by extension tried to do since the immediate aftermath of EDSA People Power by participating in elections, the very weapon of traditional politics in perpetuating itself. How far had new politics made inroads?
Unfortunately, after more than four decades of trying, bagong pulitika had all but fizzled out. The entire political landscape had been taken over almost completely by traditional politics.
Having said that it’s back to the original question: is traditional politics necessarily bad? Our answer is NO. TRAPO is a legitimate and valid way of conducting politics. It can deliver results according to the framework of liberal democracy, especially in its non-virulent version that does away with its worse features. It can work by carrying a platform that advocates anti-corruption in government and promote social services that alleviate the effects of poverty. In the current 2025 elections, there are at least two senatorial candidates, Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan, who are of TRAPO mold but carry platforms that are popular among the people. At least one senatorial candidate, Luke Espiritu, is gaining quite a popular following but is patently new politics in orientation. Many of the progressive partylist contenders (Bayan Muna, Akbayan, Gabriela, ACT) had been carrying on according to the tenets of new politics and had gained some victories at the polls. What about Vico Sotto? For me he is malabnaw new politics; or else is the best representative of the TRAPO mold. But together they are a very small minority.
In the local scene here in this island of our affections, do we have candidates carrying the banner of bagong pulitika? By the criteria outlined in the foregoing, the obvious answer is NONE. Nada. Dai. So if there is any candidate out there name-calling competitors as TRAPO, it is just a propaganda bluff. Ang sinasabi natin, di porke’t baguhan ay di TRAPO. Being so has to do with one’s style of politics. And to be sure (again) being TRAPO does not make any candidate bad. What makes one abhorrently TRAPO is when you assume its worst, nasty features.
In Part 2, we discuss with greater detail patronage system and its controversial strategy – vote-buying.