Understanding the politics of the middle class and the disadvantaged

Today the nation’s attention is focused on two topics which are actually related. The first is the impeachment proceedings of Vice President Sara Duterte. The second is the ongoing maneuvering in preparation for the 2028 presidential elections.

One book that is very helpful to understand what is going on is Wataru Kusaka’s Moral Politics in the Philippines: Inequality, Democracy and the Urban Poor (Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2017). The book continues to offer an incisive examination of how moral discourses, rather than purely economic interests or institutional dynamics, have come to structure political identities, loyalties and antagonism in the Philippines.

Kusaka’s central thesis is that politics in the Philippines has often been framed as a moral battlefield, one that separates voters and citizens into different categories of “good” and “evil,” “righteous” and “corrupt,” “civil” and “uncivil.” As he puts it, “Moral politics is politics that draws a dividing line between good and evil.”

Kusaka conducted field work among urban communities in Metro Manila, particularly in Payatas. Through interviews, observations and participation in community activities, he discovered the everyday political reasoning of residents who are often dismissed in public discourses as irrational or easily manipulated. Kusaka listened to their stories and treated their moral judgments with analytical seriousness.

A key achievement of this book is the exploration of how the urban poor deals with the labels imposed on them. In Philippine politics, the poor are frequently portrayed in contradictory ways. They are considered corrupt and dependent. They are “vote sellers who undermine democracy or are the embodiment of moral authenticity and suffering.” Kusaka demonstrates how such portrayal view themselves and position themselves within society.

There are, however, those who attempt to differentiate themselves from others. They use moral narratives to resist stigma and articulate their own claims to dignity.

One of Kusaka’s main arguments is that moral politics thrive in societies marked by deep inequality. When economic structures are not altered and political institutions fail to deliver substantive change, moral narratives become a powerful means of explaining social divisions. Instead of confronting structural inequality, citizens are encouraged to interpret political differences as moral ones. The poor are blamed for their own poverty, political opponents are demonized, public figures are presented as saviors or condemned as embodiments of corruption.

Kusaka’s analysis shows how these narratives de-politicize inequality by personalizing it. This means reducing social problems to the moral character of individuals, rather than systemic forces.

The book’s discussion of authoritarianism and populism is especially relevant to recent Philippine politics. Kusaka demonstrates that the appeal of “strongman” figures cannot be understood solely though institutional failure or personality politics. Rather, such leaders activate moral divisions by portraying themselves as protectors of the “good people” against criminals, oligarchs, drug lords or other imagined evemies. Kusaka’s framework explains why moral narratives about crime, drugs or disorder resonate so deeply among the middle class and the urban poor.

These groups may disagree about many issues but they share a desire for moral clarity in a world perceived as chaotic and unjust.

One interesting thought of Kusaka is his argument that moral politics, whether articulated by elites or grassroot groups, leads to the erosion of democratic pluralism. When political conflict is framed as a battle between the righteous on one hand and the wicked on the other hand, compromise becomes suspect and dissent becomes equated with moral failure. This moral absolutism ultimately justifies exclusion, repression and the dehumanization of political opponents.

Kusaka’s point is not to dismiss morality altogether but to caution against its transformation into a rigid political boundary that forecloses dialogue.

Kusaka also examines political mobilization. Middle class groups, particularly those aligned with anti-corruption movements, frequently frame themselves as champions of civility and good governance against the “immoral masses,” allegedly swayed by patronage of charismatic populists.

Meanwhile, segments of the urban poor mobilize around their own moral narratives, depicting themselves as victims of social justice or supporters of leaders who promise order, dignity or recognition. While both the middle class and the urban poor engage in moral politics, their different positions in the social hierarchy lead them to different moral conclusions.

Ultimately, the book helps us to understand why political debates in the Philippines often feel so polarized, emotional and resistant to compromise.  In the book, the author challenges us to imagine a political community that acknowledges differences rather than condemning it.

What we need is a democracy grounded not in moral purity but in mutual recognition of our different aims in life.

Kusaka recognizes the political middle class desire for order, predictability and safety. However, he says that this desire sometimes leads to exclusion or intolerance. The struggles of disadvantaged communities are vividly portrayed in his book. It is the balance between these two forces – the middle class and the disadvantaged community – that is the focus of the book’s ultimate message.