[OPINION] ‘Bobotante,’ ‘balimbing’: Should campaigners update political dictionary? 

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

As the May elections near, campaigners have intensified their efforts in various media. Old and new words fly around, mostly labels of convenience used to hammer messages across. But some terms in the daily discourse need redefinition, others need to be avoided, and new ones, more fit-for-purpose, need to be crafted. 

It is high time that campaigners review their political dictionary. 

Below are some entries:   

‘Bobotante’

A combination of bobo (stupid) and botante (voter), bobotante is a common expression that refers to voters judged as voting against their interests by choosing the trapo, opportunist, or corrupt politician. Americans have a similar phrase: chickens voting for Colonel Sanders (of KFC). 

Bobotante, however,is contentious because it involves passing judgment. It reflects the speaker’s frustration more than accurately describing the voter it refers to. It seems to imply that the speaker has status, is entitled, is correct, and knows the solution, while the voter is inferior and unthinking, too confused and passing on disinformation and fake news on their social media accounts unchecked (i.e. ‘marites’ or tsismoso). In other words, bobotante is a catch-all for someone thought to be making harmful political choices. 

The use of this term should be avoided. Why? Because it is a weapon in the politics of humiliation. 

Instead, the voter should not be separated from their other personas. A voter making a choice, no matter how seemingly bobo, wrong, or irrational, is also a person in need, like a farmer urgently seeking ayuda or a young parent in precarious employment with hungry children at home. Or it could simply be someone returning a favour (utang na loob). From their point of view, they could be making a perfectly rational choice or identification with the politician they vote for.   

Unlike the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders, the bobotante term places all fault on the chicken and ignores Colonel Sanders’s power and benefits in his repertoire. It is best to place blame where it belongs: on politicians using state funds to distribute private largesse. As long as politicians can get away with personalizing state funds, we can’t expect voters to ignore what is often their only access to (state) support.

‘Public service‘

This term needs urgent redefinition. It has become less an act of serving the public interest and more about keeping the family’s interest. 

The state of play is that the common good has been redefined, realigned, and recentered around those with power and wealth. The irony is that taxpayers fund public services, but plagiarizing politicians pass them off as their own, sourced from the ‘wellness of their hearts’. They claim credit where it isn’t due. 

When close relatives — daddy, mommy, uncles, aunties, brothers, sisters, cousins, in-laws, and out-laws — run for office, do political musical chairs, and set up their family-branded party lists, as if nobody else is capable, and then claim that they are doing it for the benefit of the public, they should be called hypocrites. Masters of false appearances. The air-conditioned government offices and vehicles they use should be spray-painted with the inscription “For official use also.”

Because the idea of public service has been irreparably distorted, changes are in order in how it is written and spoken. In print or digital media, it should always be written enclosed in quotation marks, i.e. “public service” (wink-wink). And it must be spoken as if it were a question, i.e. “public service?” (eyebrows raised).

‘Voter education‘

This is another term in Philippine electoral politics that must be banished from existence. Why “educate’ voters, when they know what they are doing? Completely. Especially when they sell their vote. It is politicians and their minions, on the contrary, who need to be educated or re-educated. 

Politicians need re-education on basic virtues like being honest or delivering on promises; that buying votes is bad. Like kindergarten children taught to tidy their beds, put things back where they found them, or wipe their bottoms after doing a number two. Politicians, and their lawyers too, need to be schooled again on the principles of fair play and competing on a level playing field. Most importantly, they must learn how to accept defeat when they lose, graciously if possible, because obviously not all can be winners. 

Perhaps the Comelec’s mandate should be expanded. Its name must be changed to “Commission on Elections and Ethics” (Comelet). 

‘Trapo‘

This brings us to trapo, which literally means ‘rag’, implying something dirty, used, or disposable — a derogatory term applied to the ‘traditional politician’ with no real principles, prone to corruption, or who prioritizes creepy gain over people’s welfare. 

Great care, however, should be taken when deploying this term because random, casual use tends to diminish the cunning, calculating, and crafty nature of those it refers to. Trapos are not bobos. A trapo’s role in everyday life is more than just being a trapo, especially since one man’s trapo may be another’s hero.

As role models in subterfuge, deflecting blame, and claiming credit, they become larger than life in the lives of ordinary people with whom they build long-term relationships. They are de facto fathers- or mothers-of-perpetual-help ready to personalize charity beyond the transactional abuloy. They are adept brokers at job placements, referrals, scholarships, information, and other forms of aid. They are a source of protection for those ignored and left vulnerable by underperforming or absent state institutions.  

As such, when a trapo delivers bags of rice to hungry constituents and gets criticized for political showmanship and manipulating public funds for personal gain, it is often the critic calling the trapo to account who inadvertently gets labelled kontrabida (anti-hero). Like it or not, many trapos have become effective private sources of aid, services, and protection. Underestimate them at your own risk.  

One last note. Trapos can only do what they do because state agencies are not held to account for failing to deliver. When these agencies’ operations are regular rather than particularistic and merit-based rather patronage-based, they do get things better. We have world-class civil servants whose good performance undermines trapo politics. Sadly, we are losing them fast to overseas employment.   

‘Balimbing‘

Balimbing is another convenient political label that needs critical examination. The term is derived from the carambola or starfruit, a tropical fruit with five faces, and is thus used to refer to turncoats — politicians who switch parties, allegiances, or principles for political or personal gain. A balimbing is unprincipled, opportunistic, and willing to side with whoever is in power to keep influence or secure positions (with sincere apologies to the fruit).

There is, however, difficulty in the use of balimbing as an ultimate or totalizing explanation for trapos and their messy politics. There are, after all, varied species, some more sour than others. Some good politicians become balimbing to stay in the game. Others resolve the consequent cognitive dissonance they suffer by justifying to themselves that they are politically astute survivors. Hence, nuances must be appreciated. So, could some balimbings be forgiven under certain conditions — like when she, he, or they are our balimbings? The rule could be: forgive but do not forget. And they must be told, “Hoy, quota ka na!”, when they’ve reached a threshold. 

Why is balimbing so prevalent in the Philippines? Because for some politicians, it is just a matter of switching personal networks, not political convictions. Others, well, they have no convictions at all, making switching so fluid. And mind you, contrary to what loud speakers of certain political faiths say, all groups, themselves included, engage in some form of balimbingan. Just look at this country’s history of Cabinet revamps. 

Balimbings are made possible by the absence of real party-based politics. Now, in 2025, political families have proven once and again to be the most durable political parties in the land. Even the party-list system has been subverted, turned from a mechanism to represent marginalized groups to a personalized tool for trapos wanting to build their own base outside of political parties.

The art of losing

Much has been written and published about winning elections. Careers have been made out campaigning, in making conceptual distinctions between command, influenced, and market votes; or regular, special, or dirty ops. 

Today, it is also about social media campaigns — from generating ‘likes’ to fake news and disinformation. The only thing missing, it seems, are discussions about the art of losing. 

Because Philippine elections are winner-take-all contests, Congress needs to seriously think about softening the impact of losing. There are many ways to do it. 

For example, many countries now practice ranked-choice or runoff voting — France, Brazil, and Indonesia, to name a few. If no candidate for president (or representative) wins a majority in the first round, the top two candidates face off in a second round. This forces the top two candidates to negotiate coalition agreements with the losers to get more votes for the second runoff vote. Thus, losing becomes less painful and less risky. Whoever wins without a majority of votes will need the support of losing candidates or parties. Losers keep their political relevance and leverage, even as the winners consolidate their victory. There is arguably more stability because the next government must be inclusive enough to govern. 

Yes, such a system may be more expensive. And it means more work for the “Comelet.” But perhaps it is worth trying? It could well be the solution to trapos, balimbings, and their “public service?” – Rappler.com

Eric D U Gutierrez is a Filipino social scientist who has published extensively on Philippine politics, peace-building, and agrarian studies. Having worked for three international NGOs, he has now moved into academia. He continues to keep a keen eye on the Philippines.