Only two days before Election Day. We go to the polls to cast our vote for 12 senators, two representatives (one per legislative district, one party-list), a mayor, a vice mayor, and councilors (6 to 12, depending on the municipality/city).
It is exactly one week to election day but many voters, believe it or not, are still not certain whom to vote for, judging from the many queries I and fellow journalists get. It is really difficult to choose the right candidates for next Monday’s elections because of the general lack of qualifications and the abundance of factors that disqualify many of them, or at least make them not worthy of our votes.
In our country ruled by an oligarchy, the political dynasties in most of our provinces enjoy a monopoly of electoral power, to the disadvantage of rival leaders and the general public. “An anarchy of families,” says American political scientist Alfred McCoy.
Somebody asked me yesterday (Thursday) if I have written anything on dynasties. Of course, he was referring to local political dynasties and their kind running in the coming elections, but I associate dynasties with the ancient Chinese ceramics of: Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming or Ching.
It is so uplifting to interview independent candidates because they have fresh and sensible ideas to solve the nation’s myriad problems, unlike the trapo of the two main political coalitions who mouth clichés and motherhood statements. Three such independent candidates were the guests at last Monday’s Kapihan sa Manila at the Diamond Hotel: Eddie Villanueva of the Jesus is Lord Movement and JC de los Reyes of the Kapatiran Party, senatorial candidates both, and Steve Salonga, independent candidate for governor of Rizal.
Sharp exchanges punctuated the debate among the senatorial candidates on what to do to implement the constitutional ban on political dynasties, the topic of the third and final episode of the Inquirer Senate Forum held in Cebu City on Friday.
The campaign against political dynasties is on full blast. Nothing will come out of it.
Political dynasties are out to dominate the May 13 elections which are just days away. We the electors share the blame for choosing leaders who belong to politically entrenched families whose main objective is to keep their stranglehold on government.
For better or worse, all is in the family. In politics, it is definitely for worse as it defeats the democratic idea of merit and competition. If running for political office depends on a political family, and if representatives from the same families are elected time and time again, then something is broken and needs to be fixed. But what exactly is that something? Before we can fix it, we need to understand it. Marx might be right, that philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways; the point, however, is to change it. But maybe many of our suggested changes failed to work because we have not spent enough time on analysis.
While the avowed focus of the 1st Inquirer Senate Forum last Wednesday was the inner workings of the Senate, the three former and four incumbent senators who accepted the invitation spent more time discussing pressing issues, including the hot-button topic of political dynasties.
Whether or not political dynasties should endure has become a heated issue particularly in this election season, but the surrounding ruckus has drowned out valuable insights in understanding the phenomenon in the context of pushing the country forward.
I’m very sure that this is just one among many letters written about the country’s political dynasties—the Marcoses in Ilocos, the Binays in Makati, the Abaloses in Mandaluyong, the Ejercitos in San Juan, the Eusebios in Pasig, the Revillas in Cavite, and the biggest of them all, the present administration. It is very timely that Amando Doronila, in his column on “the curse of dynastic recruitment” (Inquirer, 3/1/13), mentioned that it is not the best way of drafting political talents into public service; that it also leads to undemocratic outcomes, as well as political sterility.
