Philippines: A democracy or an oligarchy?

“More Political Than We Admit” edited by Julio C. Teehankee (Vibal Foundation, 2024) is an anthology of 17 essays on Philippine politics. Its underlying theme is that politics is “deeply interwoven into the everyday lives of the Filipinos.” He is professor and research fellow of political science of De La Salle University.

Philippine politics not only impacts the daily lives of Filipinos and is a major driver in the Philippine economy and its business sector. In addition, the Filipino, both rich and poor, seem to have a fascination with the lives and activities of politicians. For example, the hearings in Congress now may be focused on budget hearings and inquiries into the forces behind the POGOs. But the personalities involved in hearings both from Congress and the protagonists are rapidly becoming household names and are seen on the same level as a telenovela.

The authors of the different essays are distinguished scholars whose words should be taken seriously. Their essays include conclusions on different theories of different politics.

In the Preface by Teehankee, he makes an intellectually bold statement: “Using patron-client factional (pcf) framework to look at power relationships has been the usual way to study Filipino politics. The pcf was popularized by Carl Lande … he asserted that unlike western democracies, social relationships in the Philippines are not based on interest groups or people who think they belong to a certain social class. What exists is a network of dyadic ties, which are relationships between two people who help each other. In Philippine politics, there are two types of relationships: those between wealthy patrons who buy goods and services, and those between dependent clients who pay with their support and loyalty. These relationships are vertical and unequal.”

While this framework may be true in many cases, there have been examples of groups that have been ideologically driven and interest-based in Philippine politics.

The first essay by John Robert Go, the author writes a conclusion that I can definitely agree with. He says: “Firstly, Philippine politics is mainly an elite affair.” Go also talks about the teaching of political science in the Philippines, which includes a surprising statement that only three universities offer a doctor of philosophy program in political science: the University of the Philippines-Diliman, the University of Santo Tomas and De La Salle University. He also wrote about national politicians who did not adhere to the pcf framework. He cited some examples of these politicians in recent years like Jose Diokno, Raul Manglapus, Lorenzo Tañada, Jovito Salonga who have received very little attention from academicians.

Some of the essays include the historical development of politics, like Jose Ma. Sison (Amado Guerrero) who wrote about the basic problems of the Filipino people and Onofre D. Corpuz whose essay is basically an intellectual defense of president Ferdinand E. Marcos and his martial law proclamation. His essay’s title: “Liberty and Government in the New Society: An Intellectual Perspective.”

Another essayist is Benedict Anderson whose essay “Cacique Democracy in the Philippines: Origins and Dreams” focuses on the Filipino political elite going back to the Spanish colonial era. For a more intensive discussion of the Philippine elite, his essay looks into the stories of the rise and fall of certain political dynasties.

The rise and fall of political and economic elite is a topic discussed in several essays. While case studies are very interesting, I would suggest to the political scientists that they should study the topic of family business which is an international phenomenon. They would have learned that the history of family business goes back hundreds of years and is dominant in Europe, Asia and Africa.

In the Philippines, for example, more than 90 percent of businesses are family businesses.

Another aspect of family business they will learn is that generally, the overwhelming majority of family businesses do not last beyond three generations. In Philippine politics, therefore, political dynasties are also basically family businesses and my own personal studies show that most of them do not last beyond three generations.

In business, there are rare exceptions to the “three generation” rule, like the Ayala and Aboitiz families. I would be interested to learn from the political scientists which political family is the exception to the “three generation” rule.

A must read for students of political science and business management is the essay of David Wurfel, whose essay is self-descriptive: “Elites of Wealth and Elites of Power, the Changing Dynamic: a Philippine Case Study.” He actually names the economic and political elites of the 1950s and 1960s.

The other essay on the same topic is by Alfred McCoy, “An Anarchy of Families: the Historiography of State and Family in the Philippines.”

One conclusion to be derived from this book is that the state and its institutions are weak in the Philippines and powerful oligarchies, both political and economic, are actually the real institutions that run this country. And that the Philippines is not really a democracy but an oligarchy.