Philippine Politics and Governance

The Philippine politics and governance today has been regarded by many as poor, corrupt and inefficient. We have heard stories of presidents, rich congressmen and bureaucracies filled with lust for power and pesos. At the same time, we hear stories of civilians oppressed by injustice and poverty. In a book I read few weeks ago, Kasuya and Quimpo’s Politics of Change in the Philippines, it poses questions such as whether nothing has really changed in Philippine politics and whether there are feasible prospects for political and social change in the future.

With all the problems faced by both the government and the citizens, I argue that reforms are still possible.

Despite the establishment of democratic and reform-based institutions, oligarchic rule continues to persist. In fact, Philippine politics is even referred to as having an elite democracy. Thompson further describes the Philippines as being a “bourgeois” polity, one in which the only major social division is class. Throughout the years, both during democratic and authoritarian rule, the concentration of power in the hands of the elites has never changed (Quimpo, 2010). From Aguinaldo to Quezon to GMA, it comes to show that only the rich and educated can hold position and possess power. In reality, the large majority remains to be left to fend for themselves, as it has been for countless decades in a class-based society where only few families rule exclusively, politically and financially. These elites are also economically dominant because they own and run most of the businesses and corporations in the country. Even P-Noy is both a product and representative of the ruling class of political dynasties and is therefore aligned with his class interest. Only those with the “guns, goons and gold” are able to run for office and dominate society. According to Rocamora, election campaigns “have become so expensive that only rich people or those dependent on rich financiers could run.” Political dynasties and corrupt officials remain in power while endemic poverty, wide income gaps and weak governance continues to plague the Filipino society. According to Rivera and McCoy, the Philippine state remains a weak state dominated by powerful political-economic classes, just as it was in the early post-colonial years. Miriam Coronel Ferrer adds that we are in fact close to become a “failing” state if not yet a failed one.

According to Thompson, Philippine “bourgeois” politics comes in three forms: populism, clientelism and reformism. He sees Philippine politics as merely going through cycles. Hence, arguing that nothing much has changed in Philippine “democracy.” Instead, it only comes to show that we have always been a Philippine “bourgeois” democracy.

Apparently, only the political elite can afford to be patrons and have a network to develop their personal connections in the government and gain advantages and privileges in running their businesses and corporations. These bourgeoisies happen to perpetuate clientelist politics. Moreover, Philippine politics has long been described as clientelist. Quimpo describes a clientelist regime as one based on networks of dyadic alliances, involving the exchange of favors between politicians and their supporters – material benefits for political support. In other words, clientelist politics is clearly built on patronage. As patronage and clientilism continues to persist, it gives more room for corruption and more opportunities for our so-called public servants to ransack our resources and for institutions to become tools for “predation.”

Politics had become so dirty that most politicians came to be labeled as trapo (traditional politician) which means “a dirty old rag.” Sadly, the cycle just repeats the charges of election fraud, corruption, nepotism and incompetence. Although “democracy” was restored in 1986, corruption still plagues many of our government officials; corruption has been known as the “currency of governing” in the country. In fact the plague has victimized the past two presidents namely Estrada and Arroyo who were embroiled in huge corruption scandals. Previous governments were described as predatory with government officials as predators who feed on the state and the powerful prey on the weak (Diamond, 2001). According to Quimpo, the presidency and the political parties have paved the way for the predatory regime in the country. During Marcos’ time, he and his cronies employed various ways of acquiring and securing ill-gotten wealth. He created monopolies in vital industries and placed them under the control of his cronies. He also gave large dole outs to relatives and other acquaintances. He established the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) for his supporters to partake in the loot, exploiting resources by all means. Unfortunately, the exploitation and expansion of wealth and powers worsened when the Estrada and Arroyo administration sat on the pedestal. Thus, it would be difficult for P-Noy to clean up all the mess and advance his reforms – both in the institutions and in the presidency. However, the Philippine presidency is recognized as very powerful; he is even called the pangulo. Hence, with his dominant role in Philippine politics, P-Noy can possibly reform and if not eliminate, lessen corruption. It would be interesting to see how P-Noy will be able to transcend his class background and political orientation.

Political parties in the Philippines are personality-based organizations largely organized around dominant local political clans and warlords, and anchored on clientelistic, parochial and personal inducement rather than on issues, ideologies and party platforms (Teehankee, 2010). It is quite true that the political clans are the political parties in the Philippines. They only desire the benefits of office – getting its leaders in to government and enjoying patronage and other perks and privileges.

The Philippine state has also been described as patrimonial, meaning relationships are defined by personal considerations and connections. In our case, personal interests are more valued than that of the nation. GMA, for instance, wanted to win the presidency in 2004 and her party in 2007. Thus, he asked the helped of the Ampatuan to deliver votes. In turn, the Ampatuan was rewarded with funds from different government agencies, guns from DILG and AFP and freedom to dispense with the province’s IRA as the family pleased (Ferrer, 2010). In effect, the Ampatuans had the confidence to use violence just to perpetuate them in power. This is another example of predation.

Another problem that lingers in Philippine politics today is that we have a weak criminal justice system. There is no rule of law. Justice for the victims of human rights isn’t given. Instead of strictly implementing the rules of law, police forces would rather engage in bribery and tolerate the law-violators. Instead of conducting immediate hearings, prosecutors delay the imposing of justice. As this behavior continues, crime rates go up and corruption permeates because criminals can easily get away with their crimes. In addition, citizens are discouraged from filing cases because of the common notion that they would not prosper anyway. Thus, justice is not brought to the civil society, when it is the most important thing given to the civilians and it is what defines true democracy. However, the fact is that the justice system is not even fair in passing down decisions, as little as imposing punishment on a police officer, or if not, delaying the court trials. As a result, citizens get discouraged in partnering with the police force in maintaining peace, order and justice.

In a predatory regime like ours, can we really say that we have democratic institutions, that we are a democratic state? According to Kasuya, the Philippines still does not qualify as a democratic state despite of 20 years after “re-democratization.” In fact, her research suggests that although the majority of the Filipinos prefer democracy as a system of government, many do not clearly understand what it means. The notion of democracy is blurred.

However, there are various legal measures, movements and advocacies that were built for the sake of steering the society towards good governance; in other words, building a “reform constituency.” Constitutional provisions were given to reform the state such as the passing of the Local Government Code which authorizes civil organizations to participate in the policy-making process at different levels of local governance. The 1987 Constitution also regulates the terms of elected government officials. There are also various NGOs and civil society organizations that participate in reforming politics. An example is that of Jesse Robredo and Ed Panlilio’s Kaya Natin which promotes good governance.

Despite of all these reforms, the Philippines never attained liberal democracy where there is extensive protection for individual and group rights, inclusive pluralism in civil society, civilian control over the military, accountability of officeholders, and an independent, impartial judiciary (Diamond, 1996). Most of all, corrupt officials and elite rule has never been eliminated. After more than 20 years of democratization, there are still many cases suggesting that Philippine democracy is not yet fully achieved.

Nurturing civil society is one of the most important means to promote democratic consolidation in the Philippines. Many say that we already have hundreds of civic volunteers. However, according to Kasuya, a cross-national study shows that in the Philippines, only 1.9% of the economically active population is in the civil society sector and 6% of the adult population is engaged in volunteer activities. Hence, the Philippines doesn’t really have a vibrant and participative civil society. With that being said, civil society sector must be strengthened and encouraged. NGOs and POs and other civil society watchdogs can provide reports, research results to aid the Congress in policy making and policy advocacies. The civil society can also conduct check-and-balance in terms of analyzing annual budgets; they can determine how these budgets are used and such. In the case of local government officials, instead of being hostile to these organizations, they must partner with them in reforming the society. According to Tadem, reformist technocrats, the middle class technically trained experts, have a potential to advance these reforms. They push for greater transparency and accountability and favor the involvement of civil society groups in policy making process. The media sector also must work hand-in-hand with the NGOs and POs in establishing transparency and accountability. With the increasing participation of media, government officials will be pushed to become more transparent and corrupt-free as journalists involve in exposing anomalies and such. Moreover, citizens will be more informed about the state of the country.

A change in the system of government is not necessarily a solution to steering towards good governance. A shift from a presidential government to a parliamentary government isn’t the answer to the crisis we face. Trapos could very well take advantage of the shift to extend their stay in office and continue with their politics of patronage and predation.

We have to reform the state. We have to transform the orientation of local governments, political party system and wean them away from presidential patronage and put a stop to political violence through the strengthening of the rule of law. The 1987 Constitution has already provided legal measures to achieve these. Term limits, anti-political dynasty bill, the party-list system, prohibition on private armies, devolution, regional autonomy, electoral and military reforms are all steps to achieve reforms. Unless, political elites continue to break the law, the Philippine state will continue to thrive in backwardness. The civil society must take action.

Education, I argue, is the key to resolve poverty and corruption. The common tao should let them know their rights and allow the people to exercise them. He should be vigilant and be politically aware. It is through education where citizens can participate in political and social affairs. Citizens should also be educated morally. For instance, they should be taught on proper behavior. For instance, the habit of plagiarism can easily turn into corruption when one sits in Congress or the attitude of “feeling VIP” can easily turn someone into an attitude of the Queen of Hearts such as that of GMA.

Reform security sector.

Eliminate pork barrel allocations.

Strengthen criminal justice system. Strengthen rule of law. Having a weak criminal justice system, there should be an immediate prosecution of law-violators. The Congress, for instance, should conduct immediate committee hearings and investigations. The Ombudsman must be competent and fair to combat graft and corruption, monitoring the performance of officials especially those placed in high positions. The Congress must carefully study each line item in the respective budgets of the departments. Institutional mechanisms such as the Truth Commission, Commission on Human Rights, Commission on Audit, etc. should perform their functions effectively to prevent corruption and ensure transparency and accountability. Anti-graft institutions must be established both within and outside the government. Competent officials must be placed in position and not just the rich and powerful.

With a reform constituency running which is represented by the P-Noy’s good governance campaign, it doesn’t assure us whether these reforms will take place. My concern is that in a P-Noy administration, it is not guaranteed whether they will have political strength to undertake these reforms.