Dynasty building
Some years ago I asked a Metro Manila mayor to comment on political dynasties. His three consecutive terms or a total of nine years were up and he was fielding his son as his replacement.
He said dynasties are built on public support, which is based on the quality of service rendered by the clan leader. The mayor’s son lost to the challenger, so I guess the people of the city were unhappy with the performance of the incumbent. He and his family never made it back to city hall.
We can’t be sure if public satisfaction with an incumbent is based on competent governance, or simply because he is skilled in dispensing patronage. But I’ve heard that former mayor’s argument on dynasty building from several other local officials who belong to entrenched political clans.
We can bet that 99 percent of the lawmakers who are busy railroading Charter change for the shift to federalism will agree with that argument. At least one was candid enough to say they would block any proposed ban on dynasties in case Cha-cha pushes through. The warning was issued after a newly appointed member of the Cha-cha consultative commission bared the possible inclusion of such a ban in the proposed constitutional amendments that the panel is drawing up.
* * *
Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1987, Congress has ignored the provision calling for the passage of an enabling law banning dynasties.
A common congressional excuse is that term limits set in the Constitution are sufficient to stop dynasty building.
In fact the term limits effectively reinforced political dynasties. Politicians simply held on to power by fielding their spouses, children, mistresses and their children to warm their seats until the politicians could retake their old posts.
Today the extent of dynasty building has reached unprecedented, obscenely shameless proportions. Families want to occupy every possible elective position in their fiefdoms, from congressman to governor, vice governor, mayor and vice mayor. Younger relatives prepare to join the family business by becoming councilors, barangay officials and youth council members.
The check and balance system is short-circuited in such setups.
Dynasty defenders will raise that argument again about staying in power through performance. But those who hold power in this country, apart from enjoying the legitimate equity of the incumbent, rarely hesitate to use state power to intimidate anyone who dares challenge their rule. The incumbent can also raise dirty money to buy support and votes, and even pay hired guns to permanently eliminate rivals or silence critics.
The Ampatuan clan was just the worst example of unfettered dynasty building. When every village, town, park, street, bridge, school and other public structure is named after a member of the clan, and all the ambulances in town bear the family surname, it’s easy to believe that the clan can get away with anything – including slaughtering 58 people, and squishing them inside their cars for rushed burial in a shallow grave using a backhoe belonging to the government.
That was the worst case of election violence in our country, but it was unusual only in the high death toll and brazen brutality. Why are our elections always marred by deadly violence? Because politicians want to keep their family’s grip on power.
That’s another consequence of dynasty building: one family gets to control every aspect of the criminal justice system, allowing members to get away with plunder and murder.
* * * Considering the nature of public service in this country, why would a person kill to hold on to a position where he or she is overworked and underpaid?
Government service can be a thankless job. In countries that rank high on the Transparency Index such as New Zealand, public officials walk away from power because it’s too much trouble and they want to get a life.
In our country, on the other hand, family fortunes are built on political power. Everything is easier for the ruling clan: no red tape, no shakedown by city hall and fire bureau and barangay personnel. The family members’ neighborhoods are brightly lit and have well paved roads and regular police patrols. Every family member has at least one bodyguard paid for by taxpayers.
Roads and other public infrastructure are built to benefit the family’s businesses. Those enterprises can be widely diversified; anything clan members can lay their claws on will do. Competitors can be given a hard time just trying to get started.
How can the clans say goodbye to all that? That lawmaker wasn’t kidding in his warning to the member of the Cha-cha consultative body who proposed a ban on dynasties. Political clans will fight to their last breath against that proposal. It will be a battle for survival.
* * *
If proponents of the dynasty ban want some cooperation from politicians, more realistic targets can be set. To borrow a phrase from another administration, politicians can be encouraged to moderate their greed.
Instead of a total ban, those now working on Charter amendments can aim for the regulation of political representation from a single clan. Limits can be set on the government positions that one family can occupy. Successions by family members can be limited and broken.
If reasonable limits can be imposed on dynasties, the Duterte administration and its congressional minions might even find it easier to sell federalism to a nation that smells feudalism in the latest Cha-cha initiative.
Curbing dynasties is about giving others a chance, and leveling the playing field for those who want to take a shot at governance. This is political inclusion, which has been as unattainable in our country as inclusive economic growth.
Giving others a chance is important particularly in our country, where we have had too many examples of how power corrupts, and how power becomes absolute the longer one individual or group holds power in a particular area.
And we all know what they say about absolute power.