The 2025 Philippine Midterm Elections

The Price of a Multi-party system in the Philippine Politics

By: Ulysses C. Ybiernas | February 14, 2025

On May 12, 2025, an estimated 68 million Filipino voters will participate in the midterm elections, electing over 18,000 officials across various levels of government. The positions at stake include 12 senators, 254 district representatives, 63 party-list representatives, and 17,942 local officials, such as governors, provincial board members, mayors, and councilors. Additionally, parliamentary representatives for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) will be chosen.

As the election season intensifies, political candidates, especially those aligned with major parties, are actively mobilizing their campaign machinery. Rallies are happening nationwide, particularly in vote-rich areas. However, instead of focusing on policy platforms and governance, many campaigns have turned into battles of character assassination, where political factions work tirelessly to discredit their rivals. This has further deepened political divisions, transforming elections into a contest of mudslinging rather than constructive discourse.

Does the Multi-Party System Worsen Division?

The Philippines follows a multi-party system, allowing multiple political parties to compete for power. While this system fosters diverse representation and competition, it has also contributed to factionalism and political instability. Today, we see distinct political blocs emerging, supporters of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., former President Rodrigo Duterte, and former Vice President Leni Robredo, each engaging in aggressive political warfare. Instead of engaging in healthy democratic debate, these divisions have resulted in toxic political rivalries.

With such chaos, some Filipinos wonder: Would a one-party system, like the one enforced during Martial Law, bring political stability? Or would it simply enable authoritarian rule once again?

The Evolution of the Party System in the Philippines

The Philippine party system dates back to the American colonial period. The first political parties emerged in the early 1900s, starting with the Federal Party (Partido Federalista) in 1900, which supported American rule. However, the first real electoral party system took shape in 1907, with the formation of the Nacionalista Party, which dominated Philippine politics for decades.

The first national elections under a party system took place on July 30, 1907, for the Philippine Assembly, marking the formal integration of political parties into governance. Over time, the system evolved:

Commonwealth Era (1935–1946) – Two-party dominance (Nacionalista vs. Liberal).

Third Republic (1946–1972) – The rise of multiple parties.

Martial Law (1972–1986) – One-party rule under Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

Post-EDSA (1986–Present) – Restoration of the multi-party system with increased political participation.

One-Party System vs. Multi-Party System

The one-party system exists in countries like China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union, where a single ruling party governs without opposition.

Though considered unpopular right after the EDSA revolution, it has its share of advantages, namely:

1. It promotes political stability. A government without opposition can implement policies easily, quickly and efficiently.

2. Leaders can focus on national development without election-cycle disruptions. Therefore, it is conducive to long-term planning.

3. A single-party rule prevents fragmentation and factionalism and unity can be achieved.

Despite this positive distinction, a one-party system has very dangerous outcomes:

1. In the absence of opposition, dissent is often silenced, leading to an authoritarian rule. Definitely, there will be suppression of political freedom.

2. Leaders will have the opportunity to manipulate laws the are self-serving rather than pro-people since absolute power invites abuses and corruption.

3. Without diverse representation, viewpoints of the general public are ignored, preventing solutions that may apply to a wider sector of society.

With such risks, a multi-party system comes into play with a popular edge, to wit:

1. It allows multiple political groups to compete for power, ensuring checks and balances that could prevent authoritarian rule.

2. It caters a broader range of political ideologies and cover a wider scope of representation which are essential factors for a good governance.

3. Political competition pushes leaders to develop better policies that encourages innovation through healthy debates .

However, it is not exempted to bear its own set of drawbacks due to the following reasons:

1. Too many parties can lead to factions and weak coalition of government bodies.

2. It will be hard to establish long term policies and programs due to constant change of leadership.

3. Diverse leadership can slow down progress due to slow decision-making that delays the passage of laws important to social stability and economic advancement.

4. It allows political allegiances to shift frequently, often based on personal interests rather than ideology.

5. Instead of collaborating for national progress, political parties have prioritized attacking their opponents, causing instability and eroding public trust in governance.

Given this reality, is a one-party system a viable solution? Would it be applicable in the current Philippine political climate?

Reinstating a one-party rule, like during Martial Law, would likely fail due to several reasons:

1. We always learn from our lessons of the past. Under Marcos Sr.'s one-party rule during Martial Law (1972–1986), political opposition was crushed, media was censored, and human rights abuses were widespread. This period is often cited as an example of how a one-party system can lead to dictatorship rather than unity.

2. Since the 1986 People Power Revolution, Filipinos have embraced democratic freedoms, making it unlikely for them to accept a return to dictatorship.

3. Without opposition, leaders could manipulate the law, silence dissenters, and stay in power indefinitely.

4. With the rise of social media and global influence, Filipinos are more aware of their rights and less likely to tolerate authoritarian rule.

5. The global community strongly favors democratic governance. A shift to a one-party system could result in economic sanctions and diplomatic fallout.

The Path Forward

Rather than abandoning the multi-party system, reforms can be made to address its weaknesses:

1. Establishing stronger political party laws.

2. To continue educate the electorate to focus on policies rather than personalities.

3. Improve the party-list system to ensure better representation for marginalized sectors.

4. Shift the focus from character attacks to policy-driven debates and promote constructive political dialogue.

If reforms cannot be established, let us just accept the fact that it is the way it is and admit its repercussions.

Final Thoughts

While the multi-party system has contributed to political divisions, a return to a one-party rule would only worsen the situation by stripping Filipinos of their democratic freedoms. Instead of abandoning democracy, the focus should be on improving governance, political maturity, and national unity.

Ultimately, the success of any political system depends not just on its structure but on the political culture and responsibility of both leaders and citizens. If Filipinos want real change, it must start with a shift in political values, from personal rivalries to collective progress.

← Previous Next →