*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM
The rain had
barely cleared when people began to gather—ordinary citizens, families, elders,
and youth—arriving in quiet waves of disciplined devotion. They assembled not
to shout for power, nor to install or remove leaders, but to express a moral
demand: justice must be served, corruption must be exposed, and accountability
must never be selective. Their placards spoke the truth plainly. Their silence
carried its own dignity.
Yet somewhere in
the hum of prayer and conviction, a different tone entered. A
politician—uninvited and unaligned with the spirit of the gathering—inserted
themselves into the moment. What began as a solemn call for good governance was
abruptly reframed as a political spectacle. The purposeful calm fractured into
tension. It was as if a foreign script had suddenly been dropped into a
narrative that was never theirs to write.
The Anatomy of a
Hijacking
Political
scientists warn that religious or moral gatherings possess symbolic capital so
powerful that opportunistic actors often attempt to exploit it (Chua, 2018).
Unlike political rallies, these assemblies derive legitimacy from shared belief
rather than partisanship. This is why they are so vulnerable. A single
politician with a microphone—or even just a dramatic statement delivered at the
right moment—can shift public interpretation entirely.
The hijacking
happened subtly but decisively. The politician spoke not of systemic
corruption, not of institutional reform, not even of the public’s moral
demands. Instead, they delivered allegations, speculations, and insinuations
that had nothing to do with the gathering’s principles. It was a performance
crafted to generate shock, not truth; attention, not solutions.
Suddenly, the
rally’s original message was no longer at the center. What spread across social
media hours later was not the call for justice, but the political accusation.
Co-opting Moral
Assemblies for Political Gain
Scholars describe
this tactic as symbolic appropriation, a maneuver where political actors attach
themselves to movements they did not initiate in order to appear morally
aligned (Arias, 2020). In democratic societies, especially those with a strong
digital ecosystem, these hijackings proliferate. Because moral gatherings
appear unified, politicians gain a shortcut to legitimacy simply by positioning
themselves beside the crowd.
But here lies the
danger: the people in attendance did not authorize the political message. They
did not endorse the politician’s narrative. They simply became the backdrop
upon which a different agenda was projected.
This is the
tragedy of hijacked movements: the people lose ownership over their own voice.
The Digital
Amplification of Distortion
If the
politician’s intrusion was the match, social media became the wildfire. Within
minutes, online accounts—some organic, many coordinated—began reshaping the
rally’s meaning. Communication studies show that digital networks often reward
the loudest, not the most truthful (Sison & Flores, 2021). This creates a
dangerous environment where misinformation can override genuine intent.
The rally was
reframed as a political revolt, a signal of regime change, a gathering with
motives far removed from its purpose. The attendees, who had come with sincere
moral clarity, were painted as participants in a conspiratorial political
movement. The distortion was not accidental—it was engineered.
The Ethical Cost
of Opportunistic Politics
Sociologists call
this narrative corruption, where political intrusion contaminates the moral
foundation of collective action (Garcia & Liao, 2022). When a politician
hijacks a moral rally:
- the
cause becomes diluted,
- the
organizers lose control,
- the
public becomes confused, and
- the
struggle for accountability is overshadowed by partisan drama.
This harms
democracy, not strengthens it.
It undermines
justice, not upholds it.
A Mirror of
Political Desperation
Political history
shows a consistent pattern: when politicians feel marginalized or threatened,
they often latch onto moral platforms to regain relevance (Verde, 2017). By
associating themselves with religious or moral gatherings, they attempt to
borrow legitimacy they no longer possess. But this comes at the expense of
communities who did not give permission to be used.
In this incident,
the hijacking revealed the precariousness of political ambition. It showed how
easily a vulnerable moral space can be exploited by those seeking power rather
than truth.
Reclaiming the
Space for Justice
The people who
gathered that day had a singular purpose: to remind leaders that institutional
accountability is not optional. Their cause was rational, ethical, and grounded
in civic responsibility. Yet it was distorted because a politician seized the
moment for their personal advantage.
The lesson is
clear:
Moral assemblies,
no matter how disciplined or sincere, must guard themselves from political
intrusion. Boundaries must be strengthened, leadership must be vigilant, and
the public must remain discerning.
Because when
politicians hijack religious rallies calling for justice and accountability,
they do more than disrupt an event.
They undermine the
moral foundation of collective action.
They exploit
communities who come in good faith.
And they turn
sacred calls for justice into political theater.
References
Arias, M. (2020).
Symbolic politics and public mobilization in Southeast Asia. Journal of
Political Behavior, 12(3), 221–240.
Chua, R. (2018).
Faith, power, and public demonstrations: The political impact of religious
gatherings. Asian Governance Review, 6(2), 44–60.
De Vega, P.
(2019). Narrative power in Philippine political discourse. Philippine Journal
of Political Science, 24(1), 1–18.
Garcia, L., &
Liao, M. (2022). Narrative corruption: How political interference distorts
moral mobilizations. Social Inquiry Quarterly, 18(4), 309–330.
Sison, D., &
Flores, J. (2021). Media manipulation and the digital reshaping of public
protests. Communication Studies Review, 14(1), 77–99.
Verde, A. (2017).
Political legitimacy and the appropriation of religious symbolism.
International Review of Social and Political Ethics, 9(1), 89–110.
____
