The Salonga Center for Law & Development of the Silliman College of Law held a forum a few days ago on this subject, adding to the discussion in national newspapers in the last few months. (I don’t watch television so perhaps there, too.) It is again of particular interest now when so many members of known families have declared their candidacies.
One of the questions raised in the media is why after 25 years, there has been no legislative action on the constitutional provision (Art.2, Section 26) to “prohibit political dynasty as may be defined by law”, with the declared objective to “guarantee equal access to public service”.
But that provision was not exactly the focus of the forum, but rather whether it is a good or bad thing, or perhaps of no consequence, that an entrenched political culture operates on both sides of the electoral landscape, namely in political families and among voters, that leads to members of such families being elected to public office.
Two young women mayors from political families presented their views: Karen Villanueva of Bais City and Madel Alfelor-Gazmen of Iriga City in Camarines Sur. Both acknowledged that being members of political families can and does condition family members to consider political office as an option. Mayor Madel unfortunately came very late, and only spoke briefly to say that regardless of how she came to take on the job, doing the best for her city and constituency is her goal and her work.
For Mayor Karen, political families endure because of the people’s trust and goodwill, and because the continuity of policies and programs combined with the experience acquired over generations in public office provide benefits to their constituencies.
At the same time, she acknowledged that there were known examples of political families’ abuse of power, of undue control over resources, and of attitudes of being above the law.
She also conceded that the dominance of a political family could result in the exclusion of others wishing to enter the arena of public office. As remedies, she proposed the political education of voters, and the enforcement of systems and laws for clean and effective governance.
As a reactor, I recalled one family, the Tañadas and their distinguished record: nationalist statesman Sen. Lorenzo Tañada and after him, his son Senator Wigberto, always driven by the highest principles and national causes. Lorenzo’s grand-son Erin today in the House of Representatives continues their legacy.
Unfortunately for us, hardly any political families today are of that stature and probity. The present phenomenon is frequently of several members of the same family spread out over the political landscape at the same time.
For BBC in a recent report, “Politics in the Philippines is a form of family business.”
Some long-standing political families exhibit the will and tenacity to perpetuate their presence and hold on public affairs.
One can almost list, per province, the two or three dominant families that immediately come to mind, and for whom political power in their territories appears almost a birthright.
Some individual family members, by reason of belonging to the clan, and however scant their knowledge, understanding, or experience of public affairs or development issues, may have a sense of entitlement to public office. Once in office, other family members may be appointed to positions in government, a machinery built up of loyal collaborators, supporters, persons beholden to the leaders, resources accumulated, opponents or competition dealt with.
This makes the constitutional principle of “equal access to public service” more difficult for someone without such a machinery and resources.
Some say that it is, after all, the voters who make their choices, but in some settings, this is disingenuous, for many voters choose members of the dominant families out of loyalty to landlords, employers, past givers of patronage in the form of jobs, favors, medical or other forms of assistance, or possibly out of fear of retribution. A feudal relationship, this has been called.
Loyalty to a family went so far in one province as to continue to vote into office a convicted child rapist.
And it is hardly a secret that vote-buying goes on.
Still, too few voters base their votes on criteria of capability and integrity, or on proposed development directions or programs.
Voters could also base their choices on whether significant progress and sound development has been delivered by the powers that be.
But political immaturity is not entirely the voters’ fault. Many candidates do not raise the level of the electoral discussion, and in fact, mis-educate with mawkish slogans, false or inflated promises, celebrity endorsers, and entertainment, and again, vote-buying.
Political representation must be democratized and not monopolized. In a column on political dynasties, Solita Monsod suggested that voters choose only one candidate from a political family or clan, assuming one wanted that choice. That’s one of many corrections needed to an unhealthy political situation.
