SURVEY SHOWS REASONS BEHIND TRUST, DISTRUST OF MARCOS, DUTERTE IN MINDANAO
Recent survey results from Mindanao, indicating both trust and distrust toward President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and former president Rodrigo Duterte, underscore how complex political loyalties have become in the region. Mindanao has long been viewed as a stronghold of the Dutertes, yet surveys now suggest a more layered public sentiment, shaped by evolving expectations of governance and leadership style. Trust ratings, whether high or low, are not merely popularity scores; they reflect how people assess performance on security, livelihood, and respect for local identities. Understanding why some Mindanaoans continue to place strong confidence in either leader, while others are increasingly skeptical, is crucial to interpreting the political mood on the island.
The roots of these sentiments lie partly in Mindanao’s historical experience of conflict, marginalization, and uneven development. For many, the Dutertes became associated with a sense of empowerment for Davao and surrounding areas, as well as a tough approach to law and order that resonated with communities long frustrated by crime and instability. At the same time, unresolved concerns about human rights and the lasting impact of aggressive security policies have contributed to distrust among others. Marcos, by contrast, is often evaluated less on local legacy and more on national economic management, disaster response, and his administration’s ability to maintain or improve peace and development gains in Mindanao. These differing lenses help explain why trust in one leader does not automatically translate into distrust of the other, and why some voters may be ambivalent toward both.
Economic realities appear to be a central factor behind both trust and distrust. Mindanao communities are acutely sensitive to rising prices, employment opportunities, and the delivery of basic services, from infrastructure to social assistance. When residents perceive that national policies are easing economic hardship, trust tends to be reinforced; when they feel left behind, skepticism grows, regardless of past loyalties. This dynamic applies to both Marcos and Duterte: one is judged for current decisions affecting everyday life, the other for the enduring legacy of past policies that still shape local economies. Surveys capturing these sentiments do not merely reflect partisan identity, but also a practical assessment of which leadership style is seen as more responsive to Mindanao’s day-to-day needs.
Security and governance issues also weigh heavily on public trust. Mindanaoans have lived through insurgencies, clan conflicts, and periodic violence, making stability and peace agreements especially salient in their political evaluations. Perceptions that either leader supports inclusive peace processes, respects local autonomy, and works constructively with regional and local institutions can strengthen trust. Conversely, fears of renewed tension, inconsistent policy direction, or politicization of security forces can fuel distrust. It is in this space—between hopes for lasting peace and anxieties about a return to volatility—that survey numbers acquire their deeper meaning, beyond the surface of political rivalry.
The emerging picture from Mindanao suggests a public that is neither monolithic nor easily swayed by personality alone. Trust and distrust toward Marcos and Duterte appear to be grounded in lived experience, expectations of better governance, and a desire for stability that does not sacrifice rights or dignity. For national leaders and political movements, this should be read less as a contest of narratives and more as a reminder that durable support is earned through consistent, tangible improvements in people’s lives. As Mindanao continues to evolve politically and economically, future surveys will likely track not just shifting allegiances, but also the region’s ongoing negotiation between memory, performance, and hope. How leaders respond to these measured
