A dynasty is a political concept that is associated with the succession of rulers originating from the same family or clan. And the debate about it in Philippine politics becomes more intense during election campaign period.
Putting an end to this political culture, which many consider dysfunctional, becomes a battle cry of candidates who want to get rid of certain political families in particular localities — perhaps to be replaced by another dynasty.
Article II Section 26 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the legal basis for preventing political dynasty in the Philippines. And there are three Senatorial candidates who promised to file an anti-dynasty measure if elected this coming May 2013 election.
Incidentally, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago had originally filed a bill to this effect during the 13th Congress in 2004, then during the 15th Congress in 2010, but again, it did not prosper. Clearly, it suggests the prevailing personal agenda of politicians.
A study completed in 2012 led by Ronaldo Mendoza, executive director of the Asian Institute of Management Policy Center, confirms the continuing reign of political dynasties in the Philippine political landscape despite the anti-dynasty initiatives of civil society guided by what is broadly provided under the Constitution (http://www.philstar.com/headlines).
What is interesting about this study is the distinction it made between “fat” and “thin” dynasties.
Fat dynasties refer to political families with several members occupying elective positions in a certain local government unit for three years.
In contrast, thin dynasties have two members of the family switching certain elected political positions at the end of the maximum three terms or after nine years.
The difference is primarily in terms of the number of family members involved, and the amount of power or control they correspondingly enjoy. Seemingly, Negros Oriental has more of the thin dynasties.
Adrian H. Sablan, my former graduate student in Anthropology at Silliman University, shared a vivid description how political dynasty is maintained in one of the poorest provinces in the country. I directly quoted a section of what he wrote so as not to miss some details.
The incumbent Representative of the 2nd district is running again to retain her post, while her brother-in-law is also running for congressman in the 1st district against an educated, technocrat incumbent who has been widely recognized for his competent, no-nonsense service to the public. Her family has barricaded practically all political offices in the Province. One daughter is the current governor, while a son is the vice governor, whose wife is a city councilor, whose father is the incumbent mayor. For this year’s elections, the father-and-daughter tandem is switching positions. Having reached term limits, the father is running for councilor, while the daughter wants her father’s present mayoral post. What may be bizarre is that this daughter is running for city mayor against her brother-in-law, the biological brother of her very own husband, the incumbent vice governor, whose another sister is running for city mayor in the Province’s 1st district. The political structure in this Province may appear convoluted, but the center of power pivots around only one family or clan.
The above description inspires me to examine dynasty also as a cultural phenomenon. Historically, not only that political dynasty in the country was evident in the allegiance during pre-colonial period of a community to a datu — a title for a chief belonging to a royal family where political power was inherited — but it is also symptomatic of Filipino cultural values particularly authoritarianism and particularism, which are exceptionally strong in a collective society.
Like any other cultural values, these are good or bad depending upon how they are expressed and the people involved or affected.
Authoritarianism adheres to the notion of control and submission. It is not only shared by a few that controls power which exemplifies the dynasty, it is also internalized by those ruled who unquestionably submit to those in authority who are incidentally looked up as dispensers of favors or rewards.
Meanwhile, particularism refers to the tendency of a person to prioritize one’s own group or family that unfortunately may have limited the opportunity of others to have a share of certain resources or benefits.
Family tradition to be in public service is a sentimental reason in aspiring for a political position–a way of keeping the legacy of a political patriarch or matriarch who founded or developed certain locality. This conveys the good intention of the present generation of their family to be in public office, but having several of them simultaneously in different political levels cannot prevent critics to question if they are indeed doing this for the common good.
In fact, many may suspect it is driven by family selfish interests of controlling political power for economic reasons.
But if a certain political dynasty is undoubtedly doing an excellent job for the public, why should the Constitution prohibit it? The reasons are to prevent the monopoly of power, and to give opportunity to all to serve a public office.
Political dynasty is seen as antithetical to the principles of democracy. Unless an enabling law will be passed that clearly defines to what degree of relationship constitutes political dynasty, and up to what level of government is covered, political families cannot be prevented to run for public office which is likewise allowed in a democracy.
So as the cultural values of authoritarianism and particularism continue to find meaning in the political arena, the political and economic influence of ruling families will continue to pressure voters to elect their relatives who run in various positions in the government.
In effect, family background and relationships determine the final decision whom to vote; not the actual leadership merits of the candidate.
And you may have noticed how cultural values are generally being exploited during the campaign period and, perhaps, up to the day of the election or even when they have been elected in preparation for the next election season.
