A system of inherited power
SENATOR ALAN Peter Cayetano, who’s been in the Senate together with his sister Pia for five years, and whose late father was himself a member of that body, said last week that there’s nothing wrong with political dynasties per se. It depends on whether a political family—which by dint of its virtual monopoly over political power whether at the local or national level qualifies as a dynasty—is corrupt or not. Cayetano is asking those against political dynasties to make a distinction between corrupt and “clean” political clans. The implication is that the Cayetano clan belongs to the latter category, to which those opposed to political dynasties shouldn’t be against.
The term political dynasties applies to those clans and families whose members are elected and/or reelected to various offices in the local and national governments to the exclusion of other individuals. The last phrase—to the exclusion of other individuals—is crucial. It’s not their persistence in power that by itself makes political dynasties unacceptable; it’s their being a barrier to other citizens’ being elected to public office who may be better qualified, and hence their being antithetical to the right to democratic choice.
Neither Cayetano nor Congressman Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara have addressed that core issue, and it’s doubtful if it has even occurred to either of them. Angara, who’s running for the Senate his father Edgardo J. is leaving after serving three terms, has declared that it’s not a family’s monopoly over political power that’s wrong; what matters is whether that family stands for something positive—in his words, there’s “nothing wrong” with a dynasty if it has “a legacy of public service.” Unlike Angara, Cayetano is making being “clean” the standard with which to measure the worth of political dynasties.
Both arguments seem creatively ingenious—and both entirely miss the point. It’s not what a political dynasty’s record is or what it does that makes it either positive or negative; a political dynasty is unacceptable for what it is.
The 1987 Constitution bans political dynasties in Article II, Section 26 (“The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties…”). The same section does not define what political dynasties are, and leaves it to Congress to do so (“…political dynasties as may be defined by law”). But it recognizes the link between political dynasties and unequal “access to opportunities for public service.” Political dynasties, in short, make public service by individuals other than those from prominent political families problematic.
Nowhere does the Constitution mention being “clean” or having “a legacy” as extenuating factors in the prohibition against political dynasties. What’s clear is that Art. II Sec. 26 regards political dynasties as a hindrance to the right of every citizen to seek public office, period. It’s based on the assumption, tested in the experience of other nations as well as ours, that a democratic polity isn’t limited to citizens’ dutifully going to the polls every election period so they can vote for the same people or their relatives; it also includes the right to run for public office.
The right to run for public office, however, necessarily includes the right to a fair chance at winning an election by providing the citizenry with a program or platform of government that would address the concerns of the citizenry. Being a member of a political dynasty gives a candidate the advantage of both name recall and his or her relative’s incumbency’s access to public resources, in addition to the accumulated wealth that a family’s being in office more often than not assures it.
The persistence of dynasties explains why only a very few new names ever make it to Congress and local governments, with Malacañang being practically unreachable for the candidate without the advantage of the name recall of being from a prominent political family.
In more cases rather than less, having the same name guarantees the same outlook, the same view of governance and society, and therefore the same policies, or absence thereof, in whatever level of government the dynasty prevails. The consequence of this state of affairs is known to every Filipino. Together with the persistence in power of some 90 percent of the same families that have controlled Congress as well as local governments since 1946 is the persistence of the same problems of poverty, underdevelopment, and social inequality—and the corruption to which Cayetano implies his family is immune.
Political dynasties are quite simply anti-democratic, the very term itself being the product of the system of inherited power that prevails in a monarchy. That, except for the formality, and, as a result, the farce, of elections, is almost exactly what a political system dominated by dynasties is: a system of inherited power, in which a father may pass on his post to his son, and a brother and sister can be in Congress together, while an Imelda Marcos can be in the House of Representatives with her son in the Senate, and a daughter governor of a province.
Europe may have its Bourbons, Hapsburgs, and Windsors. The Philippines has its Aquinos and Cojuangcos, its Estradas, Binays, Enriles, Marcoses, Angaras, Villars and Cayetanos.
How can a democratic society eradicate political dynasty? Simple Answer: Education. Having a high % of educated populace is inversely proportional to the chance of having political dynasties.
[…] among citizens this season is a negative drive against voting for anyone who is identified with a political dynasty. Yes, people are against dynasties for good reason. And perhaps, with the proliferation of dynastic […]