|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Toward a New Philippine Political System?
| Article
# : |
11509 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
10 / 1986 |
2,738 Words |
| Author
: |
Richard J. Kessler
Richard J. Kessler is Senior Associate for the Carnegie
Endowment for International peace in Washington, D.C. |
From the time former President Ferdinand Marcos first declared martial law in 1972 until his overthrow on February 25, 1986, at the hands of the "people power” revolution, research on the evolution of pluralistic politics in the Philippines to all intents and purposes came to a halt.
During the 14 years of martial law, field research, analysis of voting behavior, and public opinion polling all were virtually moribund. The quality of the information that was gleaned is tainted by the martial law period and Marcos' almost obsessive manipulation of the electoral processes through a series of stage-managed referenda and elections.
There now exists an opportunity to renew research where it broke off in 1972, to analyze the present situation in the country and suggest possible future political scenarios. But martial law does provide a dichotomous act by which to judge previous political analysis. Few specialists, for example, predicted that Marcos would have been able to declare martial law and then continue to rule for 14 years, although many observed that the political balance of power in the Philippines was not conducive to social reform, and thus stability.
These issues are not irrelevant to understanding the possible evolution of the present situation to a pluralistic democracy capable or resolving problems peacefully.
Today, the question is not whether or not there will be opposition parties but what the nature of all the parties will be. Will they evolve out of their historical clientelist framework or will they remain rooted in the past and thus perpetuate the problems of the past?
Prior to 1972 the Philippine political system was noted for its clientelist framework. Leaders derived support by satisfying the particularistic demands of their followers. Leaders were patrons and followers were clients. Leaders, too, had patrons. Thus, the society was vertically integrated from the barrio through municipalities and provinces to the national level. Philippine culture, which emphasizes the value of a set of mutual obligations, provided the continuing basis for this system.
The system had a number of negative effects on national development. First, it did not reward rational or normative policies. National leaders had few direct ties to the voters at the base although Ramon Magsaysay's popular forays among the populace created the myth that
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
