The origins of today’s political dynasties
Sociology is the study of human social relationships and institutions. Sociology’s subject matter is diverse, ranging from crime to religion, from the family to the state, from the divisions of race and social class to the shared beliefs of a common culture, and from social stability to radical change in whole societies. Unifying the study of these diverse subjects of study is sociology’s purpose of understanding how human action and consciousness both shape and are shaped by surrounding cultural and social structures.
Randy David again employs illogical logic to link political dynasties with the Marcos’. In truth and in fact, the origin of political dynasties can be traced to the pre-colonial times when what was to become the Philippines was still under the rule of Sultans, Datus and Rajas. The Sultanate of Sulu predated what eventually became the Philippines under Spanish rule. The early political dynasty revolved around the Catholic Church which the Spanish authorities employed as the administrator with the grant of farmlands to the various religious orders. Religion was employed as a tool of pacification. Spain populated the islands with Spaniards from the mother country and they were the foundation for the plantation-style rule under the monarchy and the Church.
It was these dynasties which also rose up against Spanish rule. The idea of ruling over a country was more attractive than being under the rule of a colonizer. The heady mixture of power and wealth was hard to resist. The failed revolution was a concession by the ruling class that it could not defeat Spain. The same was true with the Americans and it was evident that the majority who decided it was best to cooperate with the Americans rather than fight a war with them became the ruling class in the new pecking order.
These families would form the core of the oligarchy. Oligarchs do not necessarily become politicians though at the onset they were the political chiefs in their communities without necessarily being appointed as such. It was the Americans who introduced the concept of democracy and elections. The remnants of the political and power structure under Spain which were useful for subjugation and pacification were retained. This is why a thorough analysis of American rule would confirm that democracy per se, was not what became the legacy of American rule because the oligarchs consolidated their position in the socio-political structure of the colony. After independence, they and their political allies consolidated their control and subdivided not only the country but the businesses from where they derived the funding for their continued hold on political power.
It is convenient for the opposition to blame everything on Marcos. David considers the pre-Marcos period as the Golden Age of the Philippines. He does not recognize the pillage of the country which followed independence as the oligarchs scrambled to replace lost fortunes due to the war. The Philippines never regained its title as the Pearl of the Orient and the Paris of the East after the war because Manila was the second most devastated city in World War II. This was the result of MacArthur’s insistence that he fulfill his promise to Filipinos that he shall return. The battle for the liberation of Manila caused undue suffering on its residents and the expatriates who formed the core of the business elite packed up and left for their home countries to escape the bitter memories of the war.
Our continuing political dysfunction stems from this root cause. The plantation-style democracy established by the Americans is the father of political dynasties. Independence in 1946 was an illusion because the Americans continued their rule with parity rights and the only difference was the installation of puppets in government who would continue to do America’s bidding. The US retained economic rights and their bases, the two most valuable assets which rendered independence intutile. The oligarchs became the new colonizers and the practice continues to the present. This is why we have never been as progressive as our regional neighbors.
It was only during the Marcos administration that the rebuilding of the infrastructure destroyed during the war began. It was also at this time that structural reforms in government were carried out based on the cooperation that Marcos was able to obtain from the Legislative which was controlled by the opposition. By the end of his first term, Marcos was frustrated and began considering Constitutional amendments, particularly the form of government, in order to maintain the stature of the Philippines as primus inter pares among nations in Southeast Asia. The result was the 1971 Constitutional Convention.
David cannot engage in historical revisionism and deny that martial law was the direct result of Ninoy Aquino’s convincing Jose Maria Sison and Nur Misuari to launch an insurgency and a Muslim separatist movement in Mindanao to weaken Marcos’ hold on the Presidency. The chaos that both would bring would enable Aquino to become President in 1973 when Marcos’ term was up. It is convenient to accuse Marcos of planning to stay in power longer through martial law but the escalating chaos and anarchy brought about by the destabilization efforts of Ninoy played a large part in Marcos’ decision to consider martial law as the only viable option to restore order throughout the country.
Marcos was not all bad as the opposition paints him to be. The period of transition that he initiated had the misfortune of coinciding at a time when the US economy was in a period of decline and there was conflict in the Middle East on which most of the world is dependent on for oil supplies. Gerardo Sicat discusses this objectively in his paper, The Economic Legacy of Marcos.
The ban on political dynasties is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution but the burden of its non-implementation falls on Cory Aquino because she did not use her “popularity” during her administration to pressure Congress into enacting the enabling law. She could have influenced then Speaker Ramon Mitra and Senate President Jovito Salonga, if she really wanted to. There is also the avenue of inserting the ban in the 1987 Constitution itself considering the members of the Constitutional Commission were all appointed by Aquino. But Cory would never be a traitor to her class and so the issue was left to the resolution of the Legislative which we well know would not also act inimically against their interest. The truth is none of the major reforms promised by Cory materialized during her Presidency. It was business as usual.
Recall also that the political dynasties which exist today are a combination of the old and the new. The new dynasties took root at the time the Cory administration went on a “demarcosification” spree by removing all duly-elected, appointed and career officials identified with Marcos in the local government units and the bureaucracy. The Binay’s in Makati stick out like a big finger sign at the opposition who faults Marcos for the same when they are equally guilty of doing what they criticized when they were out of power.
Rodrigo Duterte’s political career began when he was nominated by his mother to take her place as the OIC Vice-Mayor of Davao City which was Cory’s way of thanking Nanay Soling for her support during the campaign against Marcos.
F. Sionil Jose said that it is not up to history to judge the Marcos’ but it is up to the Filipino people. Barring a post-election disqualification by the Supreme Court, it looks like the Marcos’ are set to return to Malacanan in June. It would be up to Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to decide what would be the legacy of the Marcos family to the Filipino people.
As a sociologist by profession, David fails to recognize the reality that it is also the opposition which made the Marcos return to power and restoration possible. The Marcos’ were used by the opposition as their central bogeyman for their failures and acts of omission in terms of structural reforms which they promised when they were campaigning to oust Marcos.
It can be said that in the same manner the Filipino people have judged the Marcos’, so have they with the opposition whose time is about end simply because they failed to deliver in the time they were given by the Filipino people.
Postscript:
As this was being written, the Pulse Asia survey for January was released and it showed Marcos widening his lead over his nearest rival, Leni Robredo, for the Presidency.
Comments