After the surprising results of the recent elections — where candidates whose chances were nearly beyond hope during the term of former President Rodrigo Duterte, now detained in The Hague, surged — the yellow mob is shouting redemption.
They are ready to peel off the pink outer coating with the strong comeback they have imagined they have achieved.
The Pink Alliance, a reimagined Yellow Movement, credits itself for reactivating opposition politics with fresh symbolism and grassroots energy. It claims to be the “real opposition” and a third force, reflecting an ambition to return to the hypocrisy and indifference it was known for.
The mob’s debunked ideology of assuming the decisions for the rest of the nation as a divine responsibility and the recent electoral setbacks undermine its transformative potential.
As a third force, the Pink Alliance has largely failed to move beyond symbolic campaigns to build a coalition inclusive of urban, rural, elite, and marginalized voters.
The discredited yellow mob was rooted in the legacy of former Senator Ninoy Aquino’s 1983 assassination and the 1986 People Power Revolt that removed former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.
Its evolution into the Pink Alliance, particularly under former Vice President Leni Robredo’s leadership during the 2022 presidential campaign, marked a strategic rebranding to distance itself from the pejorative “dilawan” label that Duterte had successfully stigmatized as a symbol of elitism and apathy.
The assertion of being a third force was mainly a reference to being an alternative to the highly charged rivalry between the current administration and the former president’s camp.
The Pink Alliance is branded as an attempt to disengage the yellow mob’s failure to address systemic issues like poverty and land reform during the Aquino eras of Cory and Noynoy. Its appeal is limited to the urban and middle class population.
The Pink Alliance, however, has failed to establish an ideological anchor as a third force, unlike the yellow mob, which pushed liberal democratic principles.
Beyond good governance and anti-corruption moves, it has struggled to showcase a clear economic or social agenda against its rivals’ infrastructure-driven narrative and populist rhetoric.
The perception is that the yellow movement that metamorphosed into the “pinklawans” has not transcended beyond asserting its moral credibility and being identified as selective.
The pitfalls of personality-driven politics also hound the pinklawans. Like the Yellow Movement’s dependence on the Aquino family, the Pink Alliance’s identity was heavily tied to Robredo.
The absence of a broad leadership bench or institutionalized structure is expected to limit its staying power. Without a clear structure, the Pink Alliance’s claim to be a transformative force is overstated.
The Yellow Movement, born from Ninoy Aquino’s assassination and inspiring a generation of Filipinos, transformed Philippine politics by toppling an overstaying leadership. Its influence, however, has ebbed due to internal divisions and a populist backlash.
Its legacy remains hinged on Ninoy’s words, “The Filipino is worth dying for,” but even its Pink transformation failed to adapt to a changing political landscape.
The strategic rebranding to pink also alienated some Yellow Movement stalwarts who viewed it as a betrayal of the Aquino legacy.
The Liberal Party’s weakened role within the Pink Alliance and its shift to coalition-building with groups like Katipunan ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino, led by Bam Aquino, diluted the yellow identity that once unified the opposition.
The fragmentation it caused undermined the movement’s historical continuity and cohesion, making it harder to rally its traditional supporters.
It would be too early for the yellow mob, rebranded as the pinklawans, to claim to be the real opposition, with nothing concrete to offer Filipinos except to annoy the supporters of the incumbent and former presidents.