We need public servants, not celebrities

Tiktok edits, cardboard cutouts, and trending Twitter hashtags. When we are met with deafening screams and giddy postings, assumptions are immediately directed to the thought that these are done for celebrities. However, plenty of times, the subject of admiration and fanatic behavior are aimed towards individuals we see during plenary sessions and hearings. 

We are no longer turning to singers or actors for celebrity admiration, but to politicians who are meant to serve us. 

This craze is often referred to as a parasocial relationship or a one-sided relationship where an individual develops a strong connection, intimacy, or familiarity with someone they are not personally familiar with–often media personalities or celebrities. While initially, the relationship may be obviously false, over time, the connection can feel real–especially for those who long for a meaningful attachment. Commonly, celebrities are often the receiver of this devotion, yet slowly, politicians have become appealing to the eyes of the masses. 

The root cause of why parasocial relationships develop remains unclear; however, one of the factors that is being considered is media exposure. When we repeatedly see faces across platforms, we are likely to develop warm feelings for them. For instance, politicians are repeatedly seen on live television during campaign periods and all over social media platforms almost everyday. Their frequent appearance on our news feeds contributes to the forming attachment. Moreover, loneliness is also being considered by researchers, suggesting that the lonelier people get, the more they are likely to form connections–albeit false ones. 

While tame at first, the lengths they are willing to transcend to feed into the illusion of familiarity becomes borderline concerning. 

It starts from a simple admiration–Facebook posts of appreciation, humorous takes on their relatability, and other actions that breed familiarity. Then the connection deepens, they analyze their every move, call them names and endearment only intimate kin could ever utter, and eventually begin to feel emotionally invested in people they have never actually met. The next thing we know, they are following them wherever they go, going the extra mile to create the illusion that they are near them, and even celebrating personal milestones as if it is their own. 

Perhaps one of the most infamous cases of parasocial relationship in the Philippines are those developed by supporters of the Duterte family. They are willing to follow them wherever they go–even as far as Hague, Netherlands, hoping to catch a glimpse of their ‘Tatay Digong’, whom they have developed a familial intimacy with. This also happens to politicians who are perceived as physically attractive–like Rep. Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos–whom they make Tiktok edits for and fanfictions for, as if his supporters know him personally.

And who could ever escape the emotional relationship the public has developed towards the imagined dynamic between Senator Risa Hontiveros and Senator Win Gatchalian–commonly known by their ship name ‘WinRi’–whom they over-analyze limited interactions and emotionally invest in the imagined relationship those interactions supposedly represent. 

This phenomenon continues to grow at a progressive rate due to cultural and technological perpetuating factors. 

One of the reasons behind this craze is algorithmic amplification. According to psychologists, social media platforms are designed to keep us engaged in a way that creators whom we build a sense of intimacy with rise to the top of our feeds. This leads to frequent exposure and eventually, a deeper connection. Algorithms accompanied by short-form contents appeal best to the general public–making them more willing to consume it frequently. 

Aside from this, various cultural factors also reinforce this behavior. One in particular is the Philippines’ long-standing love team culture. From the love teams we grew up with–KathNiel, JaDine, and LizQuen–Filipinos tend to look for romantic narratives between two individuals they become invested in. Coupled with this is the desire for a relatable personality. Exposure to such creates familiarity that generates comfort. This is one of the reasons why people tend to root for politicians who sound and act like them. 

However, amidst the negative connotations, parasocial relationships with politicians have its own advantages. 

Perhaps one of its most profound benefits is its tendency to make those who engage with it interested in politics. The edits and other forms of media created for consumption appeal to the public and encourage them to tune in more to the political landscape in the Philippines. While the reason behind such involvement is questionable, this is particularly useful–especially in a country clouded by sociopolitical issues. The country needs all forms of awareness regardless of where it stems. 

What is wrong, however, is when this relationship starts to manifest into extremes, clouding our judgement–especially when needed most. When this begins to outweigh scrutiny, the public may start evaluating politicians based on how relatable, entertaining, and emotionally resonant they appear, rather than their quality of governance.

For instance, during the chaos inside the Senate, what trends instead across social media platforms were Hontiveros’ and Gatchalian’s interactions, not those things that happened–or didn’t happen–and certainly not the underlying issues before that perpetuated the dysfunction inside the Upper House. This is also the instance with former Cavite’s fourth district representative Francisco “Kiko” Barzaga with his so-called charms and ‘cat-loving’ persona that appealed heavily to the public–overshadowing his disorderly behavior and misconduct that got him expelled from the Congress. 

What is more concerning is the possibility of parasocial relationships breeding cult loyalty–where a politician becomes more of a symbol and protecting it becomes personal. Oftentimes, this loyalty is accompanied by confirmation bias, where a person actively seeks for information consistent with their existing beliefs and rejects those that contradicts them. Much like what the Duterte supporters did when they denied victims of extrajudicial killings through coordinated Facebook posts. They care less about the problematic behaviors of the politicians they support. What matters is that the said personalities are perceived to be feeding into their imaginations. 

Yet, these attachments are not always accidental. Politicians have become increasingly aware of the emotional bonds they cultivate, and in some cases, deliberately reinforces them. 

It is not hard to deduce that the public has already taken a liking to them, especially with the way they act. They, of course, have the option to just shrug and laugh it off–but why laugh it off when they can instead use it to their advantage? Some politicians may increase their social media presence–performing day-to-day activities to make them seem more relatable. Some, like Hontiveros and Gatchalian–encourage fandom behavior by reacting to WinRi contents and acknowledging them during interviews. Others may even start interacting with their ‘fans’, responding to their comments or posts via various social media platforms. 

More and more, they start to present themselves less as public servants and more as familiar personalities. 

On the surface, this may come off as a mere interaction between them and their constituents, but when we probe deeper, this may also be a way for them to stay relevant in the political scene. It ensures that they become household names, which is important for political survival. This is more beneficial to those who plan to run for a higher position in the upcoming 2028 elections. It serves as an early campaign to make their names recognizable and constantly present in the minds of the voters. 

While effective for political survival, this strategy raises deeper concerns in democracy. The public tends to become more concerned with the actions that satisfy their parasocial relationships with these politicians instead of what they accomplish in office. As a result, it shifts political judgement from governance and toward emotional appeal, gradually weakening the practice of scrutiny democracy depends on. 

It is not moral failing to find politicians relatable. They are human, and it is precisely our shared humanity that draws people towards them. Citizens may engage with political content, find it entertaining and even feel admiration. However, in a democratic society, such emotional responses must remain secondary to accountability. No matter how appealing a politician may seem, their primary role is to serve public interest–and it is this role that must always be the basis of public judgement. 

We might develop emotional bonds with them–but we must never forget that in democracy, they remain answerable to us, not the other way around.