Still, dynasty

The problem is not just that a dynasty-steeped Congress is not likely to pass, or even table, an anti-dynasty law. Though that is a huge problem already. Of course it won’t, the House of Representatives in particular. Why should the representatives agree to a law that forbids, or militates against, their spouses, children, brothers and sisters, cousins, and relatives to whatever degree of consanguinity from holding elective public offices too? That is shooting themselves in the head.

But the problem goes deeper. Even if you could, an anti-dynasty law creates even more problems than solves them. It opens up a Pandora’s Box of constitutional questions. Yes, constitutional. Its advocates of course say it has constitutional backing because the Constitution itself calls for it. But the provision that does so is in fact vague and abstract. It merely says: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

As far as I know, except for murderous warlords in far-flung areas who prevent people other than themselves from running for public office, most public officials, “dynastic” or not, do not. Everyone is free to challenge them, everyone is free to run against them. Of course not everyone has a chance to win against them, but that is not the fault of the law, that is the fault of the voters.

The Constitution does bid the state to prohibit political dynasties, but it does not say how. Which is really not unlike bidding the state to prohibit calamities. How do you prohibit “dynasties”? Do you say that two siblings may not occupy the Senate at the same time? Do you say that nephews and nieces and first cousins may not be president at the same time? Do you say that fathers and sons and granddaughters may not run for different offices at the same time?

Naturally the Cayetanos will complain, and for good reason. Naturally Bam Aquino will complain, and for good reason. And who do you take out from all the Villafuertes running in Camarines Sur—L-Ray? If JV Ejercito says, “Is it my fault that Jinggoy is my (half-)brother?” are you going to reply, “Sorry na lang, but that’s the (anti-dynasty) law, you want to blame someone, blame your father”? Can you imagine all the provisions on rights and liberties that you will step on?

In fact, can you imagine the uses that law will be put to in this country, where law has become lokohan, or where law is routinely employed to achieve the most lawless ends? It could always be used by unsavory characters who stand no chance of winning in elections to decimate the field and squeak by. Look what happened to the party-list system.

I do believe in pushing back the rule of families in politics, particularly in local politics. But I believe as well that the way to do it is not by an anti-dynasty law but by an anti-dynasty crusade, or campaign, or movement.

At the very least because the problem is not the candidates, it is the voters. The very nature of elections is free choice. How can you, and why should you, prevent anyone from running in elections? It is his right. The voters vote for them, well, nowhere does the axiom “There are no tyrants where there are no slaves,” apply more than here. Or in this case, there are no sadists where there are no masochists.

The United States does not have a law that prohibits dynasties, but you do not see siblings and spouses and family members running around in various elective offices. Certainly, you did not see them in the last elections. The reason is simple: It is anathema to the voters. It is anathema to the culture, resonating as it does with nepotism and corruption and inbreeding. That is what we need too, to make relatives running in elections shameful, repulsive,  kadiri.

I do applaud the efforts of groups like the “anti-epal” one in trying to stop the relentless self-advertisement of candidates, particularly with the use of taxpayers’ money, and the perpetuation of family in politics. We need more of that, something along the lines of an anti-kapal  campaign. “Mahiya-hiya  naman  kayo  sa  balat  n’yo.” You may not be able to legislate “dynasty-building” out of existence, but you can ridicule it, or stigmatize it, if not out of existence at least out of dominance. You address the voters, who are really the ones who can do something about it. It’s not as hopeless as it seems. A decade or so ago, it seemed near-impossible stopping entertainers and basketball players from running for—and getting voted into—office. Now, the fad is over.

I grant dynastic politics has far deeper roots than  artista  politics. As far as I can remember, we’ve always had dynasties in one form or another, which got worse and not better during martial law. But that only tells us that the problem is not legal, it is cultural. It is rooted in the family being the be-all and end-all of our existence. It is rooted in family relations being the governing principle of our existence.

Like corruption, nepotism is something we frown upon in public but accept, if not applaud, in private. Certainly it is something we criticize in others but will indulge in ourselves given half the chance. You see that in attitudes like, “This relative is useless, he’s in a position to help us but won’t.” Blood is thicker than water, the family comes first, with all its variations in ritual kinship (by baptism or marriage), fraternities, sororities, the “mistah” system among soldiers, the  compadre  system among lawyers. Why should we be surprised that that should be the core of politics? Why should we be surprised that we should have dynasties?

Culture won’t bow down to law, law will bow down to culture. Culture is where the problem lies.

Culture is where the solution lies.