The recent mid-term elections in the Philippines brought both change and continuity. At stake were 12 of the 24 senate seats, 229 district seats in the House of Representatives, and more than 18,000 local posts, including mayors and governors. President Benigno S. Aquino III and his political allies, Team PNoy, gained important wins, notably in the Senate. This augurs well for the advancement of the President’s anti-corruption and economic growth program of the “straight path” or “tuwid na daan.” Many credit these policies for the March upgrade of the country’s sovereign borrower rating to an investment grade by Fitch for the first time in history. But is the top-level commitment to make government more effective through good governance and economic reforms enough to affect change on the ground? The peculiar kind of continuity in Philippine politics poses that question.
The election results indicate that, as in the past, the biggest winners were the political dynasties and their often questionable tactics involving “guns, goons, gold, and glitter” to mobilize voters. There were, however, some significant upsets by candidates who ran on a good governance platform and won against entrenched political dynasties. Leni Robredo’s win of the congressional seat in Naga City ended the 35 year reign of the Villafuertes family, and Rolen Paulino’s mayoral win against Anne Marie Gordon in Olongapo City ended the quarter-century rule of the Gordon family. But many other dynasties still continue to dominate.
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines in Article II Section 26 is clear: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” Yet each Congress since 1987 has failed to pass a law that would define what a political dynasty is and therefore make the constitutional prohibition meaningful.
This implementation gap is not surprising given the enormous vested interest in status quo. According to a recent study co-authored by Ronald Mendoza, executive director of the Asian Institute of Management’s Policy Center – a CIPE partner in the Philippines – shows that in the pre-election 15th Congress almost 40 percent of district lawmakers (84 of 229) had kinship links with legislators in the previous three Congresses, and 70 percent of the district legislators had kinship links to past legislators, past local government executives, as well as current legislators and elected officials of the local government units.
These statistics are not likely to significantly change overnight, and other correlations illustrated by the study still hold:
- Dynasties dominate all of the major political parties.
- They possess higher net worth and win in elections by larger margins of victory compared to non-dynastic candidates.
- On average, there are more dynasties in regions with higher poverty and lower human development, pointing to the politics of patronage rather than long-term reform.
- Political dynasties are spread across the different age and gender groups of legislators; in the 15th Congress 80 percent of the youngest members, age 26-40, came from dynastic clans.
Mendoza argues that the prevalence of dynasties in the Philippine politics suggests a dangerous monopoly of power that could hinder ambitious reform efforts and he proposes a counter-measure: “We need to stay on the ‘straight path’ and all stakeholders in our society — not just central government, but also all the local governments and the entire private sector — need to get the message that any other path will no longer be tolerated by our people.”
Indeed, there is a growing anti-dynasty sentiment in Philippine society. Leaders of Movement Against Dynasties (MAD), encouraged by rejection by voters of several members of dynasties such as Villafuertes or Gordon, vowed that they will continue to fight for a law that makes the constitutional ban on political dynasties enforceable. The group launched a petition to that effect in February with the target of gathering 5.2 million signatures, which is the minimum required for people’s initiative-driven laws. “[The existence of dynasties] restricts democracy,” said MAD chair Quintin San Diego. But curbing the democracy-eroding influence of dynasties is an uphill climb given the resources these powerful families have at their disposal.
The costs of running for office are prohibitive for most and, not surprisingly, both the Senate and the House remain the domain of the rich. In the Senate, Manuel Villar leads with P1.4 billion net worth in 2012. In the House there is one billionaire and 270 millionaires, including the member of the most notorious political dynasty in the country, Imelda Marcos, the widow of long-time dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Although the Marcoses lost the authoritarian grip on presidency following the People Power Revolution in 1986, they remain a political dynasty par excellence. Imee Marcos, Ferdinand and Imelda’s daughter, is the Governor of Ilocos Norte, the family’s native province, and their son Bongbong Marcos is in the Senate.
At the same time, there is encouraging evidence that a growing number of local and national officials understand that true democracy cannot survive on family connections and clientelism but rather depends on performance. CIPE partner the Institute for Solidarity in Asia (ISA) has been working with them to institute tailored governance reforms through ISA’s Performance Governance System (PGS).
PGS demonstrates that there are real benefits to addressing the governance challenge. It translates local governments’ and national agencies’ statements of vision to actionable strategies and commitments leading to tangible results. For example, the city of Balanga used the PGS to overhaul its planning and budgetary process to better capitalize on local resources, and the city of San Fernando, Pampanga credits its work with ISA with its remarkable success at reducing local poverty.
Inherent in the PGS is private-public partnership between these organizations and the constituencies they serve, as well as transparent executive leadership. That is why, even though the term limits of elected and appointed officials who commit to the PGS work pose a challenge to sustained progress, involving stakeholders from the private sector and career civil servants ensures that there is grassroots demand for continued reforms. As a result, the success of the PGS does not depend solely on the name of the person in charge but rather on the strength of local institutions that ISA helps to empower. ISA’s work is therefore building a strong case that whether a candidate wins an election should – and can – depend not on his or her family name but on the ability to deliver good governance and needed reforms.
Published Date: June 11, 2013