Caretaker politics
We are familiar with the idea of a caretaker government—an interim leadership that exists mainly to keep things in place, maintain stability, and avoid risks that might unsettle the prevailing order. When this minimalist approach comes to characterize nearly the whole political system, however, we may speak more broadly of caretaker politics.
This is where we find ourselves today. The executive branch has shown little capacity to demand full accountability from political allies implicated in the flood control corruption scandal, or to carry out meaningful reforms in the national budget and procurement system. Congress, for its part, remains deeply enmeshed in patronage politics and pork barrel allocations—hardly in a position to expose abuses that sustain its own power.
It is not even necessary to claim that the President himself is corrupt, or that every legislator is personally involved in scandal, to explain the paralysis of decision-making we now observe. Caretaker politics thrives precisely in such settings: when one does not need to be evil for nothing decisive to happen. One only needs to equate playing safe with governing.
The origins of the Marcos presidency made this risk-averse stance likely from the outset. President Marcos came to power with an overwhelming electoral mandate but without a clearly articulated reform agenda. His victory rested on nostalgia, coalition-building, and the promise of political calm rather than on an urgent demand for institutional change. Governance during the first half of his term was largely reduced to system maintenance—reassuring markets, stabilizing foreign relations after a period of volatility, lowering political temperature, and letting unresolved conflicts lie.
Caretaker politics, however, is often disrupted by events. In Mr. Marcos’ case, two developments briefly pushed him out of this passive stance: the open rupture with the Dutertes, culminating in the enforcement of the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against former President Rodrigo Duterte in March 2025; and the severe flooding that followed the monsoon rains, which exposed the failure of enormously expensive flood control projects to protect vulnerable communities.
These developments set the stage for the President’s State of the Nation Address in July 2025. When he rebuked legislators with a sharp “Mahiya naman kayo!,” few anticipated the surge of public indignation and reformist expectation that followed. For a brief moment, the presidency appeared ready to abandon caretaker politics and assert political leadership.
Six months on, that moment reads increasingly like a missed opportunity. The administration invited citizens to submit their observations on flood control projects and created an Independent Commission for Infrastructure to gather information and recommend prosecutions. These were meaningful steps. But public debate soon narrowed to a familiar script: the pursuit of “big fish” and the spectacle of punishment. The deeper task, that of redesigning the budget and procurement systems that normalize corruption, was eclipsed.
When promised jail time for major offenders failed to materialize, cynicism returned. Corruption is once again treated as individual greed rather than as structural dysfunction.
Today, Mr. Marcos appears to have slipped back into caretaker mode. Facing impeachment complaints of his own and dependent on fragile congressional support, he has little incentive to disturb the equilibrium that sustains his presidency. Political accommodation once again takes precedence over structural reform.
Yet this reform moment need not be entirely wasted. Important lessons have been learned—lessons that can still inform a reform-minded presidency in 2028. Corruption must be acknowledged as a systemic problem. Civil society must be institutionalized as a legitimate observer in budget, procurement, and audit processes. Public works must be rebuilt around traceable responsibility. Reform blocs must replace lone reformers. And exposure must trigger automatic consequences, not discretionary mercy.
Caretaker politics may preserve stability for a time, but it also conceals decay. When politics limits itself to managing the consequences of corruption rather than dismantling its causes, it abandons its transformative role.
The next presidency will inherit not a blank slate but a fully diagnosed festering system failure, a solid basis for a reform agenda. Whether it chooses once again to be a timid caretaker, or finally to be a bold changemaker will determine whether reform remains a recurring promise or becomes a governing principle.
—————-
public.lives@gmail.com
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
