Opinion: What Coalitions Should Be Built For

Barely halfway through the Marcos administration, and the 2028 presidential race is already being gamed out.

Political analysts, campaign strategists, pundits, and handlers are busy floating possible tandems, stitching together unlikely pairings, and testing names in the marketplace of speculation. Narratives are spun to make each combination sound inevitable. Electoral maps are sketched and redrawn to explain supposed bailiwicks and voting bases. These scenarios rest on calculations, guesswork, and no small measure of imagination. But beneath all the noise, one question drowns out the rest: who can win?

But this early fixation on combinations and winnability, often fueled by bold predictions and overstretched analysis, risks crowding out a more important question: when the smoke clears and the ballots are counted, can these individuals, parties, or political forces actually govern together?

ALSO READ:

Sara Duterte is Running for President in What Analysts Call a Brutal Political Brawl

Opinion: On The Need to Fortify Pathways to Public Office

Philippine politics has long treated electoral coalitions as instruments of electoral convenience rather than enduring governing partnerships. Since 1987, the country has seen 13 coalitions in presidential contests and 16 in midterm elections, proof that alliance-building is not the exception but the norm. And yet, coalition participation tells a more nuanced story. Based on my estimates, of the 346 parties (excluding independent candidates) that have competed in presidential, senatorial, and House elections, about 47 percent ran as a single party, while just over 52 percent aligned with coalitions (16.8 percent for ruling coalitions and 35.5 percent for non-ruling ones).

When parties do band together, the objective is clear: build the broadest possible tent. They coordinate candidate selection, craft shared, often catchy messaging, pool resources, merge political machinery, consolidate bailiwicks, and minimize vote-splitting, all to extract more votes on election day than they could manage alone. From a strategist's perspective, the logic is straightforward. In a fragmented party system dominated by personalities rather than coherent programs, assembling a formidable electoral slate is often the most reliable path to victory

The difficulty arises when electoral viability is mistaken for governing integrity. Political scientist Kaare Strøm reminds us that parties pursue three goals: votes, office, and policy. These goals intersect, but they are not identical. A coalition designed primarily to secure votes may perform effectively during the campaign yet struggle once the focus shifts to distributing positions and shaping public policy. When vote-seeking dominates coalition-building, the competing imperatives of office allocation and policy influence are not resolved; they are merely deferred.

The diversity that strengthens an electoral alliance can complicate governance. Once the shared opponent is defeated, the unifying force of competition weakens, and previously muted disagreements and tensions suddenly re-emerge. As many comparativists have long observed, electoral coalitions must transition into governing and legislative coalitions capable of sustaining decision-making beyond campaign season. This requires moving from rhetoric to rule-making and from symbolic unity to negotiated policy commitments. Without a clearly defined governing agenda and a shared understanding of priorities, internal tensions are not anomalies but foreseeable consequences of alliances constructed primarily around electoral gain.

Political ambition further complicates this transition. Campaign unity does not eliminate rivalry; it postpones it. After victory, coalition partners expect representation in cabinet appointments, legislative leadership, and control over key agencies. Access to office becomes a new site of bargaining. As William Riker observed, coalitions often function as instruments for acquiring power. Once power is secured, the bargaining process intensifies rather than dissipates.

These dynamics are especially pronounced in presidential systems. In parliamentary democracies, the coalition that wins an election must immediately form and sustain the government, and its survival depends on maintaining legislative confidence. The transition from campaign alliance to governing arrangement is structurally embedded in the system. In presidential systems such as the Philippines, however, elections produce a chief executive with a fixed term but do not automatically generate a disciplined legislative majority. The institutional separation of powers and the competing legitimacies it creates mean that electoral alliances do not necessarily translate into cohesive governing blocs.

The Philippine single-term presidency sharpens this challenge further. Because presidents cannot seek reelection, succession politics does not wait. Coalition partners begin calculating their positioning for the next cycle almost immediately, and midterm elections quickly become arenas for strategic realignment rather than governing consolidation. What begins as a united electoral front gradually splinters into competing camps, each maneuvering for advantage in the race that follows. In this environment, sustaining a governing coalition requires more than shared opposition or electoral arithmetic. It requires sustained coordination and credible commitments that, by design, no single term can fully secure.

Not all coalitions are built on expediency. The partnership between the Liberal Party and Akbayan Party in 2010 more closely resembled a programmatic alliance than a transactional electoral coalition. Anchored in a shared reform agenda and ideological proximity, their cooperation extended beyond electoral arithmetic and evolved into both a cabinet-level governing arrangement and a stable legislative coalition under the administration of Benigno Aquino III. Whereas coalitions are often forged through negotiated terms to achieve an immediate electoral objective, this partnership rested on a clearer convergence of policy commitments, a foundation that contributed to its relative durability over time.

By contrast, the experience of the UniTeam coalition, composed of Partido Federal ng Pilipinas, Lakas-CMD, and Hugpong ng Pagbabago, among others, underscores the fragility of coalitions built primarily around electoral consolidation. The alliance that won decisively in 2022 soon confronted tensions over cabinet portfolio allocation and diverging policy preferences, including foreign policy direction, the regulation of POGOs, and approaches to the previous administration's drug war. As succession politics intensified ahead of the midterms, visible divergences emerged between the Marcos and Duterte camps, culminating in separate political maneuverings and repositioning among legislators. What appeared to be a seamless electoral victory did not translate into durable governing cohesion.

The early fixation on 2028 presidential tandems therefore risks overlooking the more consequential question. Yes, electoral combinations may be necessary for victory, but they are insufficient, and may even prove detrimental, if they are not constructed with governance in mind. The Philippines has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity to assemble alliances capable of winning elections. Whether those alliances can endure the pressures of governing, policy disagreement, office allocation, and succession politics, remains the more demanding test.

If coalition-building continues to be evaluated primarily through the lens of winnability, the cycle is likely to repeat itself. Elections determine who holds power; coalitions determine whether that power can be exercised coherently. Winning is good. Governing must be better.

READ MORE:

Opinion: Political Dynasties are the Noose Around our Collective Necks