The time is now

The good news: The antidynasty bill pending in the House of Representatives has hurdled the committee level—the first time for such a development. To understand why it can qualify as a minor miracle, consider that as much as 70 percent of the members of the current Congress are products of political dynasties. The antidynasty provision present in the Constitution since 1986 has not been fleshed out all this time, simply because legislators will not commit self-immolation by enacting a law that would gut their families’ reliable power base.

But there it is—an antidynasty measure endorsed by a House committee. Perhaps times are indeed changing?

Now the bad news: The bill is stalled in the House, even if it is included in plenary agenda. As Inquirer reporter Leila Salaverria noted, no discussions on the measure have been conducted because no one has yet sponsored it on the floor. When one of the bill’s authors, ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio, inquired about the bill’s status, he was told by House leaders that it would be discussed “at the appropriate time.”

The appropriate time, of course, is now, when the body politic has reached boiling point at the massive corruption and mendacity happening in the government, and radical measures—the purported abolition of the pork barrel doesn’t go far enough—are required to lance the rot in the system. But trust our craven political leaders to employ every trick in the book to delay even a token consideration of a statute that could spell finis to what has long assured their wealth, power, influence and viability.

If political dynasties were a harmful drug, it would long have been prohibited. The analogy isn’t specious.

Unhealthy substances are routinely outlawed once they are proved to maim, kill, or otherwise do injury to people. But look at the damage the system of familial politics has done to the Philippines. According to a study by Ronald U. Mendoza, associate professor of economics at the Asian Institute of Management: “On average, there are more dynasties in regions with higher poverty, lower human development and more severe deprivation; [and] dynasties tend to be richer (higher SALNs) than non-dynasties…”

In the paper “Political Dynasties and Poverty: Evidence from the Philippines” that Mendoza published with coauthor David B. Yap, the causality is not between political dynasties per se and poverty (“Political dynasties may not necessarily be affecting poverty. That is, political dynasties neither reduce nor increase poverty.”). But: “Since the largest political dynasties would, in most situations, be the families that have cultivated the most extensive networks of patronage, accumulated the most political and financial capital, and have the access to the largest political machineries, they would also be in the best position to take advantage of vulnerable economically disadvantaged voters.”

Political dynasts, in other words, ride on the back of economic inequality, exploiting and manipulating the broken system to create a self-perpetuating structure by which, from the moment they are able to grab the political reins for their families, their entrenchment becomes solid, until it is well nigh impossible to budge them from their positions to allow other parties to serve.

And because poverty is the foundation on which political families build their survival prospects, there is precious little incentive for them to change the landscape once they are in power. It is to their advantage that the poor remain where they are, easily bought during elections, plied with superficialities to keep them in check, a steady base that would elect the wife, or the son or daughter, or anyone else in the family once the political patriarch’s term ends, ad infinitum.

To remedy this, the framers of the 1986 Constitution explicitly included a clause meant to discourage such a warped system: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” But there’s the rub: The provision needs an enabling law, and all ensuing antidynasty bills proposed since 1987 to render the provision enforceable have been passed over by successive congresses.

Now that the bill has hurdled committee level at least, the public must let its voice be heard again, as in the pork barrel scam—but even more forcefully this time, given the intransigence of legislators. Tell your respective congressmen: The appropriate time to pass an antidynasty bill is now.