Written by NESTOR
MATA
Malaya Business News Online
‘Dynastic political families exist
not only here in the Philippines but also in other democracies all over the
world, in the United States, South America, Europe, Africa, and other Asian
countries.’
WHY is there so much ado about
political dynasties here in the Philippines today? Twenty-five years ago, after
the framers of the 1987 Constitution included in it a provision prohibiting
political dynasties, Congress since then never enacted a law defining the
meaning of the term “political dynasty” and implementing the ordained ban on
dynastic political families. A few senators and congressmen have tried but
failed to do it. And now, with the 2013 mid-term national elections looming in
the political horizon, it has become, as a former solon so fearfully described
it, “an explosive issue.”
Why, oh, why? They say that
political dynasties present a threat to our democracy. But, if this is true,
how come that in many other democratic countries all over the world where
political dynasties also exist, we have not heard of voices wailing to high
heavens against them? Neither have we read of any report of someone, in any of
those countries, organizing an anti-political dynasty movement!
Not in the United States, which
planted the idea of democracy when it colonized the Philippines a century ago,
where political dynasties are as old as the republic itself. John Quincy Adams,
the country’s sixth president, for example, was the son of John, its second, and
father of Charles, a congressman. And the same pattern has been repeated in
every corner of government, within generations and from one to the next, as far
as Alaska and down to California, Arizona, Indiana, Texas, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Ohio, New York, Rode Island, Florida, and many other states, where
members of some 700 dynastic political families have served in the federal
legislature since 1774.
Similar stories about political
dynasties have occurred elsewhere all over the world, including Italy, Greece,
Colombia, Mexico, South Africa, Congo, Japan, South Korea, and other Asian
countries, where dynastic politics takes the form of a male-to-female transfer,
following the American pattern of widows stepping into their dead husband’s
shoes, through either a coup or an assassination or both, often serves to hurry
the succession along, as it happened in the mid-eighties here in the
Philippines.
Thus, in 1986, Corazón Aquino was
propelled to the Philippine presidency, three years after the assassination of
her husband, Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino. And in 2010, their son, Benigno
“Noynoy” Aquino was catapulted to the presidency in the wake of his mother
Cory’s death. And, in the coming 2013 mid-term elections, a cousin of President
Aquino is running as a senatorial candidate. There are other familiar names
belonging to political families, other than the Aquino and Cojuangco clans,
like Binay, Estrada, Revilla, Enrile, Cayetano, Angara, Villar-Aguilar, Marcos,
Ortega, Singson, Crisologo, Roxas, Osmena, Durano, Garcia, Fuentibella,
Escudero, and many others numbering 95 political families.
In Bangladesh two combative widows
nowadays seem to take it in turns to run their country. Both are the relicts of
murdered politicians. Elsewhere daughters have been the main beneficiaries of
male politicians’ turbulent departures. In Pakistan, it took little more than a
decade for Benazir Bhutto to become prime minister like her father who held the
post before he was deposed and sentenced to death in 1977. In Indonesia, nearly
four decades elapsed after the ousting of Sukarno, the country’s first
president, before his daughter, Megawati Sukarnoputri, was installed as its
fifth president. In Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi may soon succeed her father Aung
San, who negotiated independence from Britain, but was murdered in 1947 before
he could become prime minister. In Sri Lanka, its incumbent president,
Chandrika Kumaratunga, is the widow of a film-star politician and daughter of
two prime ministers. It is India, Jawaharlal Nehru, the country’s first prime
minister, was the father of Indira Gandhi, its third and sixth (assassinated
1984), who was the mother of Rajiv, its seventh (assassinated 1991), whose
widow, Sonia, now hopes to be its 15th.
Indeed, dynastic political families
have flourished in all the democratic countries of the world. After all, the
idea of political dynasties is not inherently absurd. Dynasties may be found in
plenty of other professions, such as in acting, which share with politics the
value of a well-known name and only subjective criteria as to what constitutes
ability, and in medicine, law, and the natural sciences, which require some
objective qualifications that do not come with a birth certificate, suggesting
that heredity may indeed play a part in any continuing family success.
Personality and beliefs are not
quite the same as acumen and effectiveness, as one political commenter has put
it, but, hereditary or not, they must still be counted significant components
of a politician’s make-up. In politics, it seems, as in so many other
professions, nurture and nature both play a part.
And so, like it or not, it really
looks like political dynasties in the Philippines, just like in all other
democratic countries of the world, are here to stay!
***
Quote of the Day: “Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no
preparation is thought necessary.” – Anonymous Commenter
Thought of the Day: “Let us give our republic a fourth power with authority
over the youth, the hearts of men, public spirit, habits, and republican
morality. Let us establish this Areopagus to watch over our children, to
supervise national education, to purify whatever may be corrupt in the
republic, to denounce ingratitude, coldness to the country’s public service,
egotism, sloth, idleness, and to pass judgment upon the first signs of
corruption and pernicious example.” – Simon Bolivar
No comments:
Post a Comment