In the context of emerging geopolitical rivalries, the results of foreign elections really matter. The Philippines, a country with a population of approximately 110 million, is a case in point.

The US’s tangible tilt to the Far East has been complicated since Russia’s attack on Ukraine, and populous Asian countries abstained at the UN on implementing sanctions against Moscow.

Washington’s prism on the Far East appears clouded by China’s and Russia dalliance on oil imports/exports, and convenient for the two authoritarian leaders whose style resembles that of the late Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who relied on corruption and brutality. His infamous spouse, Imelda Romualdez, manoeuvered for their only son, Ferdinand Romualdez “Bongbong” Marcos Jr, to succeed outgoing strongman President Rodrigo Duterte alongside his daughter, Sara, running for vice-president.

As US “tandem” diplomats serving in the Philippines from 1984 to 1987, on arrival it seemed to us that beneath the strumming superstructure was an undercurrent of public dissatisfaction, triggered by the assassination six months earlier at Manila Airport of Ferdinand Marcos’s main political opponent, Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino. Failure of Marcos’s commission to ascertain who orchestrated the heinous act exacerbated existing national discontent.

We witnessed first-hand the competitive run-up to the first elections to be held after the lifting of martial law.

Outpouring of popular support for Corazon “Cory” Aquino, widow of Ninoy, and her eventual defeat of a defiant President Marcos was due, in part, to the exhortations of Archbishop of Manila Cardinal Jaime Sin. Voters — including Makati’s finest fleeing beauty salons with curlers in their hair — were incensed by the dictator’s refusal to concede he lost at the polls.

The will of the people could not be denied and found expression as the People Power movement, which mustered the courage to stop armoured personnel carriers point blank, rattling our nearby residence.

To avoid violent clashes between throngs of Aquino’s and Marcos’s supporters and likely storming of Malacanang Palace, our skilful Ambassador Stephen Bosworth won Washington’s approval for helicopters to pluck Marcos and family, friends, and staff from the Philippines and flew them to Clark Air Force Base onward to Hickman Airforce Base, Hawaii. To accomplish this feat, Bosworth, a career diplomat, won the support of the executive and legislative branches.

In her visit to Capitol Hill, President Aquino, a devout Catholic, received a bipartisan crescendo of jubilation at a joint session of Congress where lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans — donned yellow roses, her chosen colour.

US interests in the Philippines have been solidly linked to a common historical legacy, commerce, and strategic location that accounted for our large military presence at Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark.

The archipelagic country was coping with two insurgencies: the communist New People’s Army (NPA) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), a home-grown proto-jihadist organisation led by Nur Misuari. Its sectarian mission was separation of Mindanao from the country.

During our tenure, US diplomats kept a keen eye on both movements and sensitised numerous congressional delegations, accompanying them in separate groups to various parts of the country.

In an attempt to whitewash his father’s tawdry regime, Bongbong has refrained from mentioning the Reagan Administration’s significant contribution to development of the Philippines, military assistance, and the warm relationship that existed between Ferdinand Marcos and the White House.

Further, enormous quantities of money from the Philippine national treasury disappeared with no plausible explanation of the larceny. Finally, it took US Senator Paul Laxalt to convey a message from his close friend, President Reagan, urging Marcos to hold elections. Responding to a US TV reporter’s question, Marcos stated he would do so.

Reliable sources on the ground now cautioned us that under Bongbong the Philippines will face serious challenges from within.

Only a Cabinet with a competent team across sectors can remedy the country’s problems in the short run. Imperative is experience in the public sector and ability to implement plans to handle deficits in education, employment, health, infrastructure, and investment.

At a policy level, the US is obliged to assess whether the new Philippine Government can be relied on to join the “group of democracies” or continue the slide to illiberalism that President Duterte spearheaded.

The question at hand is whether President Marcos will be an autocratic leader who embraces toxic populism. On foreign policy, we wonder if the new leadership will challenge China for building air and naval bases in its maritime territory as well as support efforts to bring Beijing to face charges in international courts.

In this urgent situation, attaining US goals and objectives for the Philippines will require a team of diplomats on the ground and development experts like those who were instrumental in staving off potential disastrous consequences as Cory Aquino ascended to the presidency and fended off several coup attempts.

Earle Scarlett and Barbara Scarlett are former career diplomats with global experience of countries in crisis.