Root of the Problem: A Discussion on Philippine Political Culture
When Cory Aquino, the widow of Ninoy Aquino, assumed power in the Palace, she gave an order to draft what is now the 1987 constitution to correct the abuses of the Marcos regime. President Cory tried to bring in a new order, but it was no more than a restoration of the old one where only the top benefits from any progress. Cory, in short, reinforced what we call an elite type of democracy in which ilustrado politicians perpetuated themselves into power.
History has taught us fully well that only the very few, rich, powerful, landed, and influential families dominate the reign of governance in the country. Around 60 of the country's 70-plus cities are ruled by political dynasties, and many have been in control for decades, especially in the poor provinces. This virulent malady has effectively stifled true development as people are rendered powerless. This type of political system makes economic growth possible, but not the equitable distribution of wealth. The Philippines is not poor. The problem is that wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few.
The 1987 Constitution
Article II, Section 26 of the Philippine Constitution says: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” The clause “as may be defined by law” is vague. It does not specify the number of family members, and it does not specify the generation which will prohibit a family member from running for public office. It is worth noting that congressmen will refuse to pass a law prohibiting political dynasties since such a law will directly affect their control of power.
The “equal access to opportunities” mandates that public offices should be open under the conditions of fair equality of opportunities. There is no equality of opportunities if only two rival families or two conflicting family members are running for the same position. Public office has now simply become a family possession, an inheritance which can be handed from one family member to another. Under this kind of set-up, the landed and powerful becomes even more powerful. The marginalized are even pushed further in the periphery.
Political power which is controlled by the few oligarchs leads to unchecked abuses and corruption. Only few benefits while the majority of the populace who are poor suffers even more. Economic growth has not been equitable. There is inequality in income distribution and power is concentrated at the center which makes development in the rural areas difficult to realize. Blind supporters continue to have faith in their political leaders despite their knowledge of the corrupt practices of the latter. This is the patron-client type of relationship that bedevils Philippine politics.
They justify the above by simply pointing out that this is the status quo. It is already ingrained in the consciousness of the people that the candidate who bears the family name of their chosen political dynasty though incompetent will gain their sublime vote. So even if a conscientious and competent person who is not a member of a dynasty will run for public office, he will still not win. The voters are a slave to their loyalty to these elite politicians to the point that they become subservient to them. Money politics still rule the game in rural areas.
This is contrary to what Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution asserts: “Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them,” says Bautista. The political leaders should serve the people’s interest. The supreme authority emanates from the people. Political dynasty only serves the interests of the few oligarchs. The abuses of power and the concomitant corruption that comes from it is results to the debasement of the people’s hope for a bright future. As such, the country continues to look for a type of leadership that carries the sentiments of the masses.
Political Dynasties
The 1987 Philippine Constitution is very clear that political power must serve the public’s interest. Political dynasty is inimical to the welfare of the people. “It destroys competition,” says Lukas Kaelin. Political dynasty enforces the great division between rich and poor. The ruling class belongs to the elite stratum of society, and it turned out that the elite are the only ones who benefit from this. The poor Filipino is disenfranchised from a political end and marginalized from an economic perspective. Indeed, we need to ask - What is development? For whom is development?
We cannot expect a politician who has enjoyed the luxury and comfort of opulence to be sympathetic to the abject conditions of the poor. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes would remind us that man has the natural proclivity to pursue his own selfish interest and to seek his own gratification. We cannot expect the oligarchs to be altruistically motivated in running for public office. It is sensible to be critical about our political oligarch’s dissembling intentions for they are not reflective of the public interest. The interest of the public is about the good of the people. In short, it is about the actualization of the good life.
Politicians may argue that there are good dynasties. But the monopoly of power it creates often leads to corruption and abuses. It is hard to see who is good and who is bad for the latter overshadows the other. Political dynasties have done more harm than good. Although some families argue that they have been chosen by the people, it must be determined if people did really follow their conscience in voting. The people, as we all know, can be influenced by way of trivial goods that strip people of their ability to make an informed judgment when it comes to their choices. However, they are not to be blamed. It is the system that actually exploits them.
There is a need to end the culture of patronage politics. It has to start by not voting for candidates who are building political dynasty. Any political dynasty will not flourish if we voters would show our disdain for it. Politicians gained the guts of putting their family members into office because the people support it. The country is experiencing the ill-effects of a politics run only by few families, for instance, the very limited and exclusive type of development. Democracy must be truly liberating if it must make a change in the lives of people. The only way forward is to uproot the root of the problem - the lack of political freedom of the people.
