A BRIEF HISTORY OF POLITICAL DYNASTIES

Powerful clans took on leadership roles before we were colonized, but a social contract underpinned these roles. When Spain introduced the encomienda system, it transformed the datu from a community leader into “a servant of the parish priest and constabulary commanding officer” and stripped the community of its true power to choose its own ruler.

Family dynasties have been a main feature in Philippine politics for a very long time. And as of the last reckoning, at least 75 percent of legislators in Congress belong to political dynasties. A Sydney Morning Herald piece in 2012 fittingly called some of the more “established” traditional political families in the country as “dynasties on steroids.”

According to a groundbreaking study on political dynasties by the Asian Institute of Management Policy Center in 2012, lower standards of living, lower human development, and higher levels of deprivation and inequality persist in the districts governed by local leaders who are members of a political dynasty. A more alarming development is that the “fattest” dynasties — those with the most family members in office — are ensconced in the poorest parts of the country.

This socio-political phenomenon can be traced back to precolonial society, for the power structure of the communities of that period tended to be built around blood relations.

The leadership of a pre-Hispanic community rested on the datu. According to historian William Henry Scott in Barangay Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture and Society, a datu was expected “to govern his people, settle disputes, protect them from their enemies, and lead them into battle.” And “in return for these responsibilities and services, a datu received labor and tribute from his people.”

The position of datu could be inherited. But according to Luis H. Francia in A History of the Philippines, From Indios Bravos to Filipinos, datus made “no claims to a divine imprimatur or special access to the heavens, no boasts about having a hotline to God.” More importantly, community chiefs claim their leadership position on the basis of their reputation as brave warriors, and not on mere noble lineage.

Pertinently, a datu’s ability to retain his office as the ruler of the barangay depended highly on his performance as a leader. When warranted by the circumstances, he could be replaced by the community with a challenger who is more able to deliver the needs of the barangay.

A social contract

It is a peculiar feature of our pre-colonial history that powerful clans emerged in leadership roles underpinned by a social contract. They enjoyed the advantage of such an elevated social status but also assumed the role of protectorate of the community. It was incumbent upon them to exercise good leadership for to do otherwise may cause their removal from their privileged position.

Sadly, this organic social democratic arrangement was completely destroyed during the Spanish colonial period. Under the encomienda system, the tribal ruling class were utilized by the colonial government as their lackeys (i.e. tribute collectors).

Those who embraced their new role became the first among the indigenous population to be Hispanized and were rewarded for their loyal servitude with wealth and limited authority. The datu class thereafter become the principales and the barangay simply evolved into the generic appellation, indios.

This was a fundamental transformation because according to Apolinario Mabini in The Philippine Revolution, the cabeza, unlike their previous incarnation as datu, functioned not as a community leader but as “a servant of the town’s parish priest and constabulary commanding officer.”

The underpinning social contract was now gone and the obligation to protect the community with it. More importantly, the power of the community to choose its own ruler was now lost and has found its way in the hands of a central authority. Indeed, from a mandate to be earned, authority to govern the community has at this point become a commodity that can be bargained for.

Not surprisingly, many from the Filipino ruling elite immediately and willingly collaborated with the Americans when the United States replaced Spain as the nation’s colonial master. Obviously, this was the best way to preserve and even expand their political clout.

A painful irony

Noted scholar Michael Cullinane writes in Ilustrado Politics: Filipino Elite Responses to American Rule, 1898-1908, “the structure and operation of Filipino national politics had its origins in the municipal and provincial elections of 1901-1902 and in the proliferation of political networks and alliances that came into being as local elites competed for political power through the electoral process.”

Moreover, according to Patricio N. Abinales in Orthodoxy and History in the Muslim-Mindanao Narrative, once democratically ensconced in office, the modernday cabeza “entrenched themselves further through intricate ties with other local elites.” Alliances and loyalties that gained the principales class of Filipino society access to national government largesse.

It is a painful irony indeed that our nation’s introduction to the democratic way of life was actually the point when public office became not just a commodity to barter with, but also to profit from. More importantly, this was the moment when the authority to govern the nation fell completely under the control of the privileged few.

The Americans brought with them democratic institutions that we enjoy and are proud of today but they also brought with them the politics of patronage. This was the means used by Manuel L. Quezon, Sergio Osmeña Sr. and Manuel Roxas to take full control of the country in Malacañang. The very same method used by others after them to ascend to power as well as for the more than 55 political families to keep their hold on their supposedly elective offices for the past halfcentury.

In sum, this review of our colonial past has unravelled the loss of two extremely valuable indigenous political traditions. First, the fundamental belief that rulers have the duty to exercise good leadership in order to keep their privileged position in the community. Second, the core principle that it is the community that holds the power to choose its ruler and no one else. Recognizing these losses are critical because modern political dynasties sprung from this void in our political culture.