Friendly Observer
By Arthur Keefe
Political Dynasties
Last week I suggested that politics in the
Philippines can be best understood as a long political fiesta, rather than an
exercise in democracy. This week I focus on another aspect of politics here
which undermines true democracy. I am referring to political dynasties. This is
not unique to the Philippines, and examples can be seen in the USA (The
Kennedys, the Bushes, as well as lesser known families who monopolize power at
the state level), in Africa, (the recently elected President Kenyatta), in
India, the Ghandis (not the Mahatma one!), the Nerhus, and in Pakistan, the
Bhutos. It is perhaps inevitable, that growing up in a political family, with
political connections, and the wealth which attaches to political power here,
sons, daughters, wives and extended families are attracted to a similar
position.
It would be unfair to exclude all family
members from entering politics if justified by their own efforts and merits. It
might be possible to limit this effect by insisting they have to enter politics
in another area, but other more fundamental changes are needed of dynasties are
to be controlled.
One simple change (which will have its own
critics), is to remove the limit on terms. In a democracy, it should be the
voters who decide whether they have had enough of a politician, not the
election rules! The existence of limits on terms helps encourage the creation
of a family business in politics. Wives follow husbands, only for the husband
to return after an enforced absence. Similarly with sons and daughters, a
roundabout is created. In Chile, an outgoing President (Bachelet) had an
approval rating of 84%, but was limited to one term. The public wanted her to
stay. The election rules said no. she is now under pressure to return following
her unpopular successor! (in this case, it was not her husband or relative)
Another unfortunate consequence of the
limit on terms is the roundabout of politicians moving from Council to Province
to Congress to Senate, as they seek a kind of political promotion, at the same
time as they try to extend their political career. There are plenty of examples
of this in the current elections, both local and national.
Another reason dynasties flourish is the
nebulous state of political parties. These are not formed around a set of
values, and have little tradition. Rather, they are loose alliances created
around a cluster of political candidates who may have little in common, save
the desire to be elected. Candidates even create their own parties purely as a
vehicle for election. When I ask politicians what their Party stands for, I am
met with blank stares or statements of ‘motherhood and apple pie’. They will
say they stand for ‘Change’, but when challenged can, can find few specifics to
define this. They will argue for transparency, but who will argue for
obscurantism? They will say they are pro-poor, but who will declare they are
pro-rich? These are not dishonest people, and they may do well if elected. The
problem is that there is no coherent, costed, programme to achieve their vague
aspirations.
In the absence of policies and programmes,
it is only personalities which people can see. Media stars benefit, but so do
the namesakes of other politicians. Why did Ejercito change his name to Estrada
for this year’s Senatorial Vote? The reason is obvious. He hopes to gain votes
through name recognition and his father’s popularity. What are the qualities of
the wife of Villar, save her name?
Strong
Political Parties with adequate funding and well defined policies will not
remove the impact of famous names, but it will add a major new dimension to the
factors governing both the selection and election of candidates.
The least democratic part of the system,
and the one where dynasties flourish is the Senate. How can the mass electorate
hold individual Senators to account? What purpose, other than vote catching, is
served by their huge pork barrel funds? How can transparency be observed with
such a centralized system? Few will defend the Senate as it operates, although
some will refer to the separation of powers, as a check on the power of both
Congress and the Executive, necessary if you mistrust most politicians.
In my
view, this separation has not prevented abuse, and it has often led to shackled
and inert government, just as it does in the USA today.
I support a Parliamentary system, with
strong government. But in its absence, a move to regionalize the Senatorial
Constituencies would at least provide some transparency and local
accountability. As with all changes, there are pros and cons, and a regional
Senator could establish a political business for his or her family, just as
some Congressman have done.
In
conclusion, it is not feasible to outlaw dynasties, despite the Constitution,
but it is possible to substantially reduce them. The problem is that change
would have to come through the very institutions the present dynasties control,
so as I concluded last week, I am not holding my breath!
No comments:
Post a Comment