top of page

By:

Abhijit Joshi

31 August 2024 at 10:09:24 am

Uddhav Thackeray’s Long March Ahead

While defections may weaken the Shiv Sena (UBT), Maharashtra’s politics is shaped as much by emotion and identity as by arithmetic. As the Shiv Sena marks the 60th anniversary of its foundation, the celebrations are accompanied by introspection as much as festivity. Both factions - the Shiv Sena led by Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and the Shiv Sena (UBT) led by Uddhav Thackeray - continue to claim ownership of the party’s legacy, ideology and emotional bond with Maharashtra's...

Uddhav Thackeray’s Long March Ahead

While defections may weaken the Shiv Sena (UBT), Maharashtra’s politics is shaped as much by emotion and identity as by arithmetic. As the Shiv Sena marks the 60th anniversary of its foundation, the celebrations are accompanied by introspection as much as festivity. Both factions - the Shiv Sena led by Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and the Shiv Sena (UBT) led by Uddhav Thackeray - continue to claim ownership of the party’s legacy, ideology and emotional bond with Maharashtra's electorate. Yet one development continues to reverberate across the state: the steady migration of leaders from Uddhav Thackeray’s camp to the Shinde-led Sena. Political Flip-Flop The latest reports suggest that six of the nine Shiv Sena (UBT) Members of Parliament may align themselves with Shinde in what has been described as ‘Operation Tiger.’ The larger question, however, concerns the ordinary Shiv Sainik, the grassroots worker who spends years campaigning, mobilising supporters and defending the party through good times and bad. For such workers, political realignments often produce confusion and disillusionment. One day they are instructed to oppose a rival faction; the next, they find their leaders sharing platforms with former adversaries. The dilemma is profound: whom should they follow, and where does their loyalty now lie? As the Shiv Sena enters its seventh decade, the future of its cadre may matter as much as the future of its leadership. Regional parties in India rarely disappear overnight. They endure electoral setbacks, organisational crises, leadership feuds and even the loss of their symbols. What allows them to survive is the emotional connection between their leaders and their grassroots workers. The undivided Shiv Sena founded by Balasaheb Thackeray in 1966 remains perhaps the clearest example of this phenomenon. Rebellions Galore Over the past three decades, the party has weathered a series of rebellions. In 1991, Chhagan Bhujbal departed with a significant section of the organisation. In 2005, Narayan Rane rebelled, expecting dozens of legislators to follow him, though only a handful eventually did. Raj Thackeray’s exit in 2006 inflicted a deep emotional and organisational wound, even though no MLA initially joined him. The most damaging rupture came in 2022, when Eknath Shinde led a revolt involving 40 legislators, bringing down the Uddhav Thackeray government and eventually securing control of the original Shiv Sena name and its iconic bow-and-arrow symbol. Now, four years later, Uddhav Thackeray faces another test. If the reported departure of six MPs materialises, the party’s parliamentary presence would be substantially weakened. Yet it would merely constitute another chapter in the long and turbulent struggle over Balasaheb Thackeray’s political inheritance. What is striking is that every rebellion in the Shiv Sena’s history has shared a common feature. Chhagan Bhujbal's departure was shaped by the political churn of the Mandal-versus-Kamandal era and his rivalry with Manohar Joshi. Narayan Rane believed that Uddhav Thackeray's rise blocked his own path to the top. Raj Thackeray reached a similar conclusion, convinced that Balasaheb’s preference for his son limited his prospects within the organisation. Even Shinde’s revolt was rooted in the perception that Uddhav’s leadership style had become an obstacle to the ambitions of many senior leaders. Despite these repeated schisms, the Shiv Sena’s core support base has displayed remarkable resilience. The average Shiv Sainik has historically remained loyal not merely to an election symbol but to a broader sense of identity, ideology and belonging. Above all, that loyalty has been anchored in the enduring memory of Balasaheb Thackeray. That emotional capital remains Uddhav Thackeray’s greatest political asset. The evidence was visible in the 2024 Lok Sabha election. Despite losing the party name and symbol, the Shiv Sena (UBT) secured nine parliamentary seats. Although the party subsequently suffered setbacks in the Maharashtra Assembly election, the Lok Sabha outcome demonstrated that a substantial section of Marathi voters continued to regard Uddhav Thackeray as the authentic political heir to Balasaheb’s legacy. The challenge before him today, however, differs fundamentally from the one faced by his father. Balasaheb commanded the organisation through charisma, authority and an almost unmatched emotional hold over the cadre. Uddhav must instead rely on organisation, persistence and sustained public engagement. The next three years will therefore be decisive. If he intends to remain a serious contender ahead of the 2029 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, he will have to spend considerably more time on the ground. Reconnecting with workers, rebuilding local leadership structures and expanding the party beyond the politics of sympathy will be essential. Electoral revival cannot be achieved through nostalgia alone. There is, however, one development that could reshape the political landscape. The recent rapprochement between Uddhav and Raj Thackeray has revived hopes of a broader Marathi political consolidation. After years of rivalry, the Thackeray cousins appear to have recognised that political survival may require cooperation rather than competition. Should this understanding evolve into a durable alliance, it could consolidate the Marathi vote in urban Maharashtra, particularly in Mumbai, Thane, Nashik and parts of the Konkan. For Uddhav Thackeray, the immediate future remains difficult. Organisational defections continue to haunt the party, and reports suggest that legislators, too, are being courted by rival camps. Yet Maharashtra’s political history offers a useful reminder. The Shiv Sena has repeatedly survived predictions of its demise. Every split has weakened the organisation; none has succeeded in severing its emotional connection with a significant section of its cadre. The battle for the Shiv Sena is therefore no longer merely a contest over legislators, MPs or election symbols. It is a struggle over memory, legitimacy and identity. Eknath Shinde may possess the official party name, the symbol and a larger legislative presence. Uddhav Thackeray, however, still retains a considerable portion of the emotional constituency that Balasaheb painstakingly built over five decades. Whether that emotional reservoir can once again be converted into electoral success remains the defining question. The answer will be determined on the streets, in shakhas and among party workers across Maharashtra over the next three years. For now, Uddhav Thackeray stands politically wounded, but far from defeated. In Maharashtra politics, that distinction often matters more than the numbers.

Marcos vs. Duterte: How the UniTeam Fell Apart

What began as a coalition of convenience has turned into a contest of survival.

Ferdinand Marcos Jr Sara Duterte
Ferdinand Marcos Jr Sara Duterte

Earlier this month, a routine administrative reshuffle sent shockwaves through Philippine politics. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) removed Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, head of the Vice Presidential Security Group (VPSG), without notifying Vice President Sara Duterte.


This was not merely a bureaucratic move but a bold political message. The removal signalled deeper institutional friction and was widely seen as evidence of the worsening ties between President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr and his vice president. Their “UniTeam” alliance had once projected unity, stability, and dynastic collaboration during the 2022 elections.


From alliance to antagonism

The UniTeam’s 2022 formation arose not from ideology but political expediency. Ferdinand Marcos Jr, representing the northern elite and business technocrats, allied with Sara Duterte, daughter of hardline populist ex-President Rodrigo Duterte, who dominated Mindanao and commanded a loyal base. Their combined machinery swept the elections, securing majorities and reshaping the nation’s power structure.


By mid-2023, cracks had begun to appear. Policy rifts emerged over education, public health, and governance. Sara Duterte pushed for a nationalistic, conservative curriculum, while Marcos backed liberal reforms and technocratic consensus. Cabinet reshuffles slowly edged out Duterte allies, deepening mistrust. In June 2024, she resigned as Education Secretary, citing irreconcilable policies and poor consultation.


What followed went beyond disagreement—it was the rise of rival political narratives. Marcos styled himself as a global-minded moderniser, courting investors and bolstering diplomacy. Duterte doubled down on populism, accusing the government of neglecting grassroots concerns and hoarding power in Manila. By late 2024, the UniTeam had devolved from an alliance into a battleground of competing agendas and loyalties.


The impeachment battle

The conflict intensified after four impeachment complaints were filed against Vice President Sara Duterte in December 2024. Allegations included misuse of intelligence funds and efforts to undermine the President through inflammatory statements and coercive tactics. In February 2025, the House approved the complaints, paving the way for a Senate trial.


The impeachment proceedings quickly dominated national discourse. Major TV networks, online influencers, and regional papers took sides. Pro- and anti-Duterte protests erupted in Davao and several provincial capitals. The issue also split the political class, leaving governors and mayors caught in a storm of pressure and potential retribution.


In July 2025, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling declaring the impeachment unconstitutional, citing the one-year bar on successive cases within the same legislative term. Duterte supporters hailed it as a victory for judicial independence, while Marcos allies warned of judicial overreach.


Military and security fault lines

The military’s role in the feud remained one of its most sensitive and volatile aspects. The abrupt removal of Col. Lachica in October, without protocol or prior coordination with the Vice President’s office, fuelled fears of creeping militarisation in civilian politics.


Earlier that year, anonymous reports surfaced of an aborted “soft coup” allegedly led by retired officers sympathetic to Duterte. Though the AFP denied the claims, the incident prompted a rare public address by the Chief of Staff, reaffirming the military’s loyalty to the Constitution and civilian rule. Shaped by the lessons of the 1986 and 2001 EDSA uprisings, the institution sought to project neutrality and professionalism.


Despite this, the military remains a powerful arbiter in political crises. Its stance may be neutral, but internal sentiments often reflect the nation’s broader political divides.


The political landscape ahead

With the once-dominant UniTeam now defunct, political alliances are rapidly realigning. President Marcos Jr is working to tighten control over key institutions and expand his base among centrists, technocrats, and Manila’s economic elite. His administration has doubled down on infrastructure, education reform, and foreign policy to position the Philippines as a key Indo-Pacific player.


Meanwhile, Vice President Duterte is rallying her base in Mindanao and the Visayas, drawing on her family’s entrenched networks and populist legacy. Her public appearances are more frequent, her rhetoric sharper. A new political party launch seems likely. Her local-first message resonates with voters who feel sidelined by the capital-centric policies of the current administration.


The rivalry is already reshaping legislative debates, with Senate and House blocs subtly realigning. Bills on decentralisation, education, and law enforcement have turned into political flashpoints. Provincial leaders are hedging their bets, balancing between both camps. Their decisions will strongly influence the path to the 2028 presidential race.


The Philippines has long faced cycles of elite rivalry, personality-driven politics, and institutional fragility. The Marcos-Duterte rift continues this pattern but may also mark a turning point. As 2028 approaches, key questions remain: Will the political system adapt, evolve, or fracture under the strain of dynastic rule? Can realignment foster policy coherence and democratic maturity, or will it entrench old weaknesses? The answers could shape the next decade of Philippine governance and stability.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page