Some Filipinos who are totally against charter change (or constitutional reform) always use political dynasties as an excuse. It's not enough that some of them should keep saying that economic charter change will mean "selling the Philippines to foreigners". Please, if they realize it, developed countries allow 100% FDI ownership--allowing foreigners to own 100% of their business. Back on the topic, I would like to discuss political dynasties and why they're not necessarily bad. Some people keep talking about the anti-political dynasty law--that is one per family. It might be because they still think the first Marcos Administration was a parliamentary system. Please, evidence has been gathered that it was never a parliamentary system, to begin with (read here)!
It's easy to talk about political dynasties. Some people were citing President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. as a member of a political dynasty. Some people also cite the Dutertes. I even raised it up that what if the Robredo daughters should all run for office if they're qualified. It's effortless to try and shoot down the argument. Some have the slippery slope that the Philippines shifting to either a parliamentary system or federalism, would mean that political dynasties will erupt like crazy. It's like, "Are you crazy? We're already having political dynasties erupt left and right! Do you want to shift to the parliamentary system? We must remove political dynasties, not shift to the parliamentary system!"
However, we need to look at how politics works in the Philippines
 |
| Inquirer |
How can one expect the anti-political dynasty law to work in a name-recall system? I'm not even surprised that Atty. Mel Sta. Maria dares to say that Kristina Bernadette "Kris" C. Aquino is capable of running. I even ran across a post on Facebook that said "Get well soon!" to Kris. Not because so Kris can still have more time with her children. It's so Kris can run for senator. How can one talk against political dynasties while wishing Kris would one presumably because of her deceased only brother and her deceased parents? I even feel Bongbong's and Vice President Sarah Z. Duterte-Carpio's victories are due to name recall. The Dutertes are strong in Davao. The Aquinos are strong in Tarlac. The Marcoses are strong in Ilocos. Whether it's an Aquino, a Duterte, or Marcos who sits--it's most likely due to name recall. Never mind the well-documented Marcos Wealth and that the Tallano Gold is most likely just a fable. If Kris should get better and become a Senator--it's still another name recall. If the Robredo daughters may win a seat--it may still be because of name recall.
What becomes more hypocritical is when the loyalists are the ones raising the issue. Does it ban political dynasties except for their favored family? It seems to be. There's really no consistency in calling to end political dynasties. One can shout, "No to political dynasty!" at one moment then be shouting for the candidacy of their idolized politician's relative. It's like one can badmouth businessman Paolo Benigno "Bam" A. Aquino because he's an Aquino but supports Rep. Ferdinand Alexander "Sandro" A. Marcos III. After all, he's a grandson of Marcos. One can badmouth a possible candidacy of Kris' eldest son Joshua Aquino but support Sandro for being a Marcos. Where's the consistency in all of that?
This reminds me of meeting a certain clueless woman on Facebook. She says that she's not in favor of charter change, as long as certain families are still in power. I tried to argue with her the problem has been the system. However, she's been using Mrs. Robredo as an excuse not to change the system. They think system change equals regime change. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way at all!
Why political dynasties in a parliamentary aren't much of an issue?
From pages 679-680 of From Third World to First, this can be read showing why political dynasties aren't necessarily bad if you've got the right system:
When Loong was still unsettled after his bereavement, Goh Chok Tong, then the minister of defense and assistant secretary-general of the PAP, invited him to stand for Parliament in the December 1984 general election. At that time Loong was a colonel on the general staff and the joint staff in the SAF. Chok Tong as his minister, had a high assessment of Loong's potential in politics. Loong was concerned, that as a widower with two young children, he would find it difficult to manage the family as he would have to be absent much of the time on political work. He discussed it with Choo and me. I told him that if he missed the coming election, he would have to wait for four to five years before he would have another chance. With every passing year, he would find it more difficult to change and adjust to political life, especially learning to work with people in the constituencies and the unions. Most of all, he had to feel deeply for people, be able to communicate his feelings for them. At the age of 32, Loong left the SAF and contested the elections in December. He won one of the highest majorities of any candidate in the election.
I appointed Loong, a junior minister in the ministry of trade and industry. His minister immediately put him in charge of a private sector committee to review the economy just as we entered a severe recession in 1985. The committee's proposals that the government take strong steps to reduce business costs and strengthen competitiveness were a major political test for Loong and the other ministers. In November 1990, when I resigned as prime minister, Loong was appointed deputy prime minister, Loong was appointed deputy prime minister by Prime Minister Goh Cok tong.
Many of my critics thought this smacked of nepotism, that he was unduly favored because he was my son. On the contrary, as I told the party conference in 1989, the year before I resigned, it would not be good for Singapore or for Loong to have him succeed me. He would be seen as having inherited the office from me when he should deserve the position on his own merit. He was still young and it was better that someone else succeed me as prime minister. Then were Loong to make the grade later, it would be clear that he made it on his own merit.
For several years, Chok Tong had to endure the jeers of foreign critics that he was a seat warmer for Loong. But after Chok Tong won his second general election in 1997 and consolidated his position as his own man, the jeering stopped. As Chok Tong's deputy, Loong has established his standing as a political leader in his own right--determined, fast, and versatile in ranging over the whole field of government. Almost every difficult or taxing problem in any ministry had his attention. Ministers, MPs, and senior civil servants knew this. I could have stayed on a few years longer and allowed him to gather support to be the leader. I did not do so.
This reminds me that maybe anger towards Bongbong's invitation to Singapore, may also be because of sentimentalism towards the late Flor Contemplacion. Anyway, if we look into the picture, the difference is Loong was qualified and not because he was the son of LKY. Instead, we look at Loong, he was someone who had to prove himself when his father gave him the position of trade minister. However, Loong was already in a position at the SAF as a colonel. Loong graduated from Trinity College Cambridge and Harvard University. Do you think LKY could've bribed the universities to give him those honors? Besides, becoming prime minister in Singapore, isn't a walk in the park either! If the Philippines had a parliamentary system--I doublt Bongbong would be prime minister at all!
Even the first step to becoming prime minister, is obviously difficult:
Step 1
In order to become the prime minister, one needs to be an elected Member of Parliament (MP) and a member of the majority party. Considering that the PAP has formed the government, and has won every election since 1959, this article is going to assume that it is easier to rise to power with the PAP.
But before even entering politics, certain factors increase the probability of success for someone with ministerial aspirations. A recent study of Singapore’s current ministers and their educational background found out that a typical minister is one who has:
- Studied at an Independent or SAP secondary school
- Went to Raffles, National JC or Hwa Chong for their tertiary studies
- Read business or economics as an undergraduate
- Gained a postgraduate degree, most commonly at the Harvard Kennedy School
Hence, candidates that follow this route seem to have a statistical advantage.
In addition to this, the government’s dominant status and its access to the Public Service Commission – which gives out Singapore’s most prestigious scholarships – allows it to recruit scholars into politics. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew conceded as much, saying that “a person who has done well in Singapore’s scholarship system will eventually be spotted and headhunters from the party will look for him”. This focus on educational attainment seems to be grounded in the belief of Singaporean vulnerability. In other words, for a country where prosperity is “a result of a continuing act of will” the PAP believes that educated and capable leaders are able to come up with plans and measures to cope with a unique set of problems. An article in the Economist also contends that the PAP avoids the types of corruption seen in other one-party dominant states precisely because it constantly recruits, and in the process turfs out established figures “ruthlessly”.
As we look straight into it, Loong had to do a lot of steps before he could even sit in power. Did it matter if he was the son of LKY or not? What mattered was that Loong could prove himself. What's true is that Singapore's parliamentary form of government worked, because it was a real parliamentary. It's not because LKY wasn't corrupt, unlike Marcos, that made the parliamentary system work in Singapore but not in the Philippines. Again, when will stubborn boomers ever stop spreading the lie of the "parliamentary system" under Marcos? It never existed! As Ninoy called it, "We had a parliamentary form of government without a parliament."
Since the parliamentary doesn't rely on role calls--it doesn't matter if political dynasties will happen again. First, they wouldn't be so plenty because name recall is almost non-existent. That means members of the political families need to prove themselves. Sandro may have lost the confidence of the parliament, if he was a member of the Philippine parliament, regarding his statement on the Philippine peso being weak because the US dollar, is strong. If the Robredo daughters are all qualified then why not? If Manuel A. Roxas Jr.'s son, Paolo Gerardo Z. Roxas, is qualified, why not? If Bam can prove himself then why not? If James Carlos "Bimby" A. Yap can prove himself as a member of parliament, then why not? It wouldn't matter anymore if they belonged to a political dynasty or not. What matters is if the political dynasty is built on credibility instead of name recall.