Political Dynasties, Dirty or Clean; Good or Bad?

By: Joe Mauricio

 

In American politics, “dynasty’ is a dirty word. The Founding Fathers, after all, went on record as wholeheartedly objecting to power flowing through blood rather than ballot declaring in the U.S. Constitution that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States of America.

In reality, however, it took just about as much time for the ink to dry on the Declaration of Independence as it did for American politics to become another type of family business. In 1848, for example more than 16% of Congressional seats were filled by someone whose relative had previously held the political position. In 2006, Congressional members who serve more than one term have a 40-percent chance of someone in their family later ending up in Congress. That doesn’t imply that these family trees are full of rotten apples, but they may cultivate relationships and connections that can help siblings, cousins, and inlaws win elections as with any business operation.

Technically, political power should run through a family for at least three generations in order to qualify as a dynasty. Just because political ambition runs in a family doesn’t mean those expected to campaign necessarily share common dreams of electorial glory.

The Adams(es) have been called “America’s first dynasty,” although the family’s political heft would peak and fade out prior to 20th century. John Adams worked his way up from humble upbringing and wheeled and dealt with France and England at the close of American Revolution. The Adams burnished its presidential legacy when John Quincy Adams took office in 1825. Charles Francis Adams III marked the last in the family line to pursue public office, but was selected by President Hawes as Secretary of the Navy.

In the Philippines, the definition of dynasty is a situation when an incumbent official’s spouse or his or her second-degree relatives hold or seek office together or when spouse or relative succeeds him or her.

The socio-economic and political inequities prevalent in Philippines society limit public office to members of ruling families. In many cases, voters, for convenience and out of cultural mindset, look up to these ruling families as dispensers of favors. More often than not, the purpose of that is to maintain the family’s hold on political power but also the economic resources for voters.

What is alarming is the entrenchment of the system of political dynasties on the higher and blatant scale make the fair representation of Filipino voters more elusive. Incumbent President PNoy Aquino is himself a benefactor of this culture of political patronage.

The 2016 election is the best testament of political and constitutional mockery. If the political branches of the Philippine government will not act and seek appropriate judicial remedies, then the citizenry must act and seek judicial relief from the court of last resort, in pursuant to the principle of where there is right, there is a remedy, where political dynasties have long dominated the Philippine politics, patronage politics become the rule at the polls…the one who did not belong to a political dynasty had no chance of winning against members of a politically powerful and influential family.

Under this system, public power remains in the hands of the political dynasties. It also meant that the interest of the political dynasty prevails over the national interest.

Whether or not political dynasties are evil per se is no longer debatable from the constitutional perspective. Sec. 26, Article II of 1987 Constitution prohibits political dynasties. Thus, whether a political dynasty is reform-oriented or not, it does not really matter. The prohibition against political dynasties is the manner by which the guarantee of equal access to opportunities for public power is to be fulfilled.