Even the hardiest of us will have difficulty keeping calm with what’s happening in the Senate. Sen. Imee Marcos introduced a sensationalist video into the records, offering the conspiracy theory that the reason they overtook the Senate leadership was to prevent term extensions and a no-election scenario. This, despite the fact that the most fervent and open champion of Charter change (Cha-cha) was in their alliance: Sen. Robinhood Padilla, who gleefully reminded us of this. The same senator, by the way, whom they reinstalled as chair of the committee on constitutional amendments. Anyone with a sense of history should also remember that former President Rodrigo Duterte himself kept pushing for Cha-cha. On face validity alone, their conspiracy doesn’t hold water.
But here’s the thing: I suspect they knew that already.
Invested parties do not disseminate sensational claims, especially ones without adequate evidence, merely to be believed. Disinformation can also be used as a smokescreen. One of the main functions of disinformation is to confuse. So even if it was not effective in making people believe it was true, it could still be effective in distracting people from certain topics and issues. It also puts the opposition on the defensive, having to waste time to refute the claims.
Ironically, a vehement denial can also fan the flames of conspiracies. The more a conspiracy theory is denied by people in authority, the more likely the believers will think it to be true. They take advantage of conspiracy believers’ natural inclination to mistrust government and mainstream institutions to further entrench themselves in power. Imagine, a Marcos accusing an Aquino of wanting a term-extension for a Marcos!
We also need to keep in mind that perhaps Marcos’ video presentation wasn’t for her fellow colleagues. She likely knew it was out of order and would eventually be taken down. What mattered was that it had already been shown to the public. Once an outrageous claim is spoken into existence, it tends to take on a life of its own. They no longer have to convince you of its veracity; misinformation often spreads and reinforces itself.
Words can be easily weaponized, as in the case of misinformation. This is why I trust behavior over words. One can easily sustain a verbal lie; it is harder to maintain deceptive behavior over time. To understand someone’s true motivation, we need to look for behavioral patterns. We look at their history, past performance, and their commonly used strategies and coping mechanisms. We take note of how they are in times of stress and crisis. We notice how they react when confronted with conflicting evidence.
When it comes to the behaviors of our public leaders, we want consistency. We also want alignment between what they say and how they act. As someone who represents the people, we want their votes to adequately reflect our public interest. For us to trust our leaders, we must feel that we know them enough to act in accordance with our expectations.
The recent actions of the Senate majority, however, have been more confusing than clear. More mysterious than transparent. Their explanations and justifications for their behaviors fall short. They claim that their leadership change had nothing to do with the impeachment, which coincided on the same day that the House impeached Vice President Sara Duterte. They claim that their motion to allow online voting for senators was simply to update technology, when there is a larger context of legal uncertainty for some members of the majority.
Being the leader, the Senate president is at the center of this confusion. He seems to want to be seen as the “reasonable” one. More bombastic senators go out on the floor first, proposing something incredible that riles up the opposition. He then comes in and proposes a more “reasonable” alternative, reminiscent of the persuasion strategy of door-in-the-face—ask for something big so that they are more likely to say yes to a smaller request. He did this the first time the Vice President’s articles of impeachment were transmitted to the Senate. From his fellow senators’ motion to dismiss, he suggested instead to “remand” the case, which ended up with the same effect. As for Marcos’ video, he suggested that the senator withdraw the video, but it had already been shown to the public. The latest incident in the Senate had the majority re-propose a motion to allow online participation and voting for “justifiable reasons” despite it already having been referred to the committee on rules. His alternative suggestion was to divide the House to vote on whether the motion could already be taken up straight to the plenary, amid the minority’s persisting questions about adherence to the rules. He claims he wants to set politicking aside and work on the problems plaguing our nation, yet his actions and proposals are not consistent with this.
Exposing the smokescreen of political theater requires vigilance and critical thinking on our part. Ultimately, action matters over words.
—————-