PINOY POLITICS 101: Fourth of Five Modular Lessons
Socio-Political Dynamics of the Practice of Political Dynasties in the Philippines
John Andrew S. Bautista, OP
The question whether the practice of
Political Dynasties is good or bad for the society cannot just be answered from
a theoretical or moral standpoint, as it is and as would political theorists,
sociologist and socio-political thinkers would suggest, it should always be
based on an empirical grounds and evidence to be able to make a convincing and
a definitive stand on the issue of Political Dynasties. The researcher, in presenting the perceived
effects of political dynasties specifically its prevalence and practice within
the Philippine society, based and collected views, interpretations and
observations from a number of researches and study on the present-day practice
of Political Dynasties in the Philippines from sociologists, political analysts
and professors alike.
A. Effects of the practice of
Political Dynasties in the Philippine Society
Running the country with Political
Dynasties around have different effects in people, society and in our country. It is already a part of our Filipino
culture, a part of who we really are as men and women who aspire to lead and
govern our country. With no controlling or defined law to practically control,
delimit and prohibit these dynasties, as of the moment, it is safe to assume that
these Political Dynasties are here to stay and remain for a period of time.
However, one big question with this practice and existence of Political
Dynasties that can be asked today is that: Are
these dynasties keeping the Philippines from achieving its full potential by
keeping political power to themselves?
Pro-Political
Dynasties (principally composed of people from those political clans and
families) contend that it is not about the number of politicians from the same
clan but their integrity and track record in public service.
They bluntly claim that their ascendance to power sprang from a good forerunner
who is ultimately loved by his or her constituents. Their legacy-related
motivations is their main reason to serve the people because for them, political
service runs well in their blood.
With
regards to this line of thought, Political Analyst Mon Casiple says that if
political dynasties have a good record of keeping the country in order possibly
because it runs in their blood or the political family has good intention in
ruling, then it is without question, “favorable” for its constituents.
Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, now the present Mayor of the City of
Manila, thinks of the practice of political dynasties in this similar positive
perspective, He stated that:
The people are the final
judge….As long as these Traditional Politicians are doing their job and they
will do their job well and they are not using guns, goons and gold or the
so-called ‘three Gs’, then let the people decide and vote for them.
Likewise
for Casiple, he states that one positive advantage and effect of choosing
traditional politicians from political families is that political dynasties
allow extended time horizons that enable more effective planning and
implementation of policies with long-term goals. Thus, the longer their tenure
the more they tend to care about long term outcomes projects and developments
that they have started can be assured of continuity and progress because they
themselves have control of it.
Apparently, politicians with shorter tenures
often yield to populist demands and reject difficult but necessary reforms that
pay-off in the future, and are critical to sustained, robust, and inclusive
growth.
In
patronizing politicians coming from political families, it is a given advantage
that they are of a large network, that they have what they call in political
language, political machineries.
It is without a doubt that the political machineries of politicians provide a
good and a viable source for networking and catering the needs and demands of
the constituents. In the society, especially in the Philippines, Casiple argued
that to be somehow more effective in addressing the problems and the needs of
the citizens, politicians must have this kind of a team or group that will aid
and assist the him/her to execute the plans and platforms which he/she have
laid out. Furthermore, he added that given the fact that our country has a lot
of social problems and dilemmas to face with, a lone and a solitary leader
cannot carry out and fulfill its duties without a ‘network’ that will be behind
you.
Additionally,
in an intriguing study by Solon et.al in 2001
from the University of the Philippines -Diliman School of Economics, they argue
that political dynasties may not be necessarily detrimental to development.
They contend that the decisive factor behind poor public services provision and
low-level welfare in many local areas may actually be “the lack of competition
among political families -- not their presence per se.”
They find that incumbent dynastic governors adopt projects and programs that
are anchored towards development when faced with challenges from other
political clans, basically to differentiate themselves from rival political
families.
To
sum up, these politicians coming from political dynasties do not just rely
solely on their names, fame, political legacy and credibility that have
catapulted them into power and position in the government. They too have this
traditional kinship network that plays a key role in executing their function
as servants and leaders of the state. For the dynastic politicians serving our
government, having the practice of political dynasties is clearly not wrong for
them. Senator Edgardo Angara Sr. says that:
The practice of Political
Dynasties is not an issue at least for my supporters and constituents. If you
are talking about excellent leadership that was exhibited either by my parents,
grandparents and all my other relatives, then it is simply a testament of our
credibility in public service that will help us in getting reelected to serve
our people.
What
was presented earlier are some perceived positive aspects and effects in the
practice of political dynasties quoted from a number of actual politicians
themselves and political observers and analysts alike. At this point, we
advance further in our study by now citing and identifying the negative effects
as well as criticisms regarding the practice of Political Dynasties in the
Philippines. The following narratives that will be presented are the perceived
and recognized negative effects based from empirical studies, analysis and
observation from professionals and professors alike in the field of politics,
political science and philosophy and sociology:
According
to the study of Mendoza, Ronald, et. al in Inequality
in democracy: Insights from an empirical analysis of Political Dynasties in the
15th Philippine Congress in
2012,
one foremost negative effect of this practice is that the prevalence of
political dynasties signals the deterioration of political equality that
results to political monopoly. It palpably leads to a deterioration of
socioeconomic outcomes that prevent people from effectively communicating their
needs to their government. Political inequality, in turn, could be a critical
and decisive factor behind other forms of inequality such as economic
inequality and income equality which visibly leads to poverty in the society.
Furthermore,
Mendoza, et.al claimed that in Philippine politics wherein power and control is
crucial towards meeting the desired goals and achievements, dynastic officials
can use the powers of the state for self-serving interests without fear of
replacement or administrative sanctions. According to the aforementioned study,
“they themselves possess bias in the selection of political leaders, thereby
favoring those with influence, possibly preventing the best and the brightest
leaders from serving in the government, and/or biasing policies in favor of
their way and with their corresponding jurisdictions of service.”
In the same way, this tactic by dynastic politicians is what they call the
“tactic of self-preservation and expansion”
which renders for a continuing rule of political dynasties through
party-switching for networking for the purpose of political preservation.
In
Philippine politics, as we have all witnessed and observed in every medium
existing such as the media and in recent technology such as in the internet,
image and visual packaging have undeniably become key factors in the expansion,
preservation, and continuing rule of political dynasties. Partnerships with
lawyers, the media and the press, showbiz personalities and various
corporations have favored wider expansion and greater popularity for these
political dynasties, ensuring their rule over their opponents.
Correspondingly,
in the article of S. Coronel entitled Seven
M’s of Dynasty building,
she argued that the combination of factors like wealth, popularity, myth, and
violence contribute to the formation of Political Dynasties. Wealth is very
crucial because running for and remaining in office is costly and expensive.
However, she also argues that wealth and popularity are not sufficient enough
to form political dynasties because political success in both local and national
levels require a political machinery. She contends that the success of a
political campaign is contingent on the creation of a political network capable
of transforming wealth and influence into votes. With this trend occurring that
proves to be a vital factor to win the election and ultimately attaining a seat
in the government, this trend alone makes the playing field apparently unfair
as the non-elite and those with low-profile aspiring politicians would simply
rely purely on their own financial capability and in their own way of promotion
and campaign without the aid and support of these alliances, networks and
political machineries.
Similarly, in the study of Political
Analyst and Professor Julio C. Teehankee concerning the emergence and
persistence of Political Dynasties in the Philippines, he argues that the
practice of political dynasties itself stems from the highly unequal
socio-economic structure of Philippine society and the failure of the country
to develop a truly democratic electoral and party system that is similar to our
western democratic counterparts like that of the United States of America. It
has been noted that in the Philippines the politics of personalities trumps the
development of robust political parties and political platforms. This
observation seems to be validated by the dominance of political dynasties in
most of the major political parties in the Philippines today.
Ultimately for Teehankee, the prevalence
and existence of political dynasties in the Philippine society will deny the
ability of the majority to contest the elite, and will therefore directly limit
them in attaining and holding public office.
In addition to the claim of Teehankee, as
depicted and noted earlier, membership to a political dynasty increases one’s chances
of being elected into office, as shown by statistics that dynastic officials
ruled both the local and national level in terms of positions they occupy. With
this foregoing trend, the foreseeable effect is that it allows the politician
to constrain competition by excluding most citizens from participating in
political leadership roles.
Once in the position of power, Teehankee
argued that dynastic officials have the possibility and probability to promote
narrow class interests or worse is that it may be of selfish personal interest.
If this occurs, political participation can be further weakened and thus will
allow political dynasties to be strengthened through misleading information and
voter disillusionment. In turn, the people may misinterpret political
platforms, vote candidates who do not represent their interests and will
address their actual needs, or altogether dismiss the need to scrutinize
political platforms and go for personality or to vote senselessly by
name-recall.
Another factor and effect that Political
Dynasties in this country bring about is the issue of these dynasties
consistent involvement in Political violence and killings in the previously
mentioned article the Seven
M’s of Dynasty building.
Sheila Coronel argues that “the long history
of politically motivated assassinations indicates that violence provides some
dynastic politicians the opportunity to remove or grievously cripple the rival
political dynasties.” Frequently, in the local
level of the government, political violence is one strategy that most political
empires utilize in order to intimidate and threaten their opponents from
running into office. One notable example is the infamous brutal and violent
Maguindanao Massacre in 2009. The event is considered a political related
incident, killing 58 people that consists of aspiring political candidates,
journalists and their security escorts. The said incident’s suspect is at that time’s incumbent Governor of
Maguindanao Zaldy Ampatuan Sr., considered a prominent member of the Ampatuan
clan, a dynasty wherein its members occupies the most elected positions in
Maguindanao before and after this incident had happened.
For professor and sociologist Randy David,
this heinous crime and incident happened because they make use of their big
clan as a political power to reckon with in his own territory. He said that:
These people do not
bother to recruit proxies to run for public office and represent their
interests; they themselves become the officers of the state, bequeathing public
positions to their children as if these were part of the family heirloom.
This analysis by David is parallel to
saying that political dynasties make use of their position in the public office
as a means of gaining power and dominion over other individuals more equipped
in serving the populace that them. And in the event that they are being
threatened to be removed from office, they use the power of their private
armies in their political machineries to dispatch of the so-called “enemy”
which happened to the family of Governor Toto, Governor Ampatuan’s foremost
opponent in Maguindanao.
On the other hand, one ingenuous claim
that the existence of Political Dynasties trigger is that it causes more
poverty. In the Philippines, it is undeniable that poverty is extremely
rampant. In reality, do Political Dynasties cause more poverty here in the
country? Looking and revisiting the study conducted by Mendoza, Ronald, et. al
of the Asian Institute of Management entitled Political Dynasties and Poverty: Evidence from the Philippines in
2013 showed that Political
Dynasties may not necessarily be affecting poverty. That is, Political Dynasties
neither reduce nor increase poverty here in the Philippines because according
to the study, political parties in the country are not really offering nor
supporting polices that benefit the poor but instead are introducing policies
that perpetuate more the practice of these Political Dynasties.
However, the said study uncovered strong
evidence that the more severe poverty in a place or territory is, the higher is
the prevalence of Political Dynasties. Mendoza, et.al argued that patron-client
relationships are the recourse of the poor, and these in turn reinforce the
self-perpetuation of Political Dynasties. They added that the areas or
territories with more poor people tend to have the existence of several
political dynasties.
