The Nature of Philippine Politics
Professor Alex Magno, a Filipino political scientist, observed that what the 1987 Constitution stipulated as multiparty system actually has resulted to a no-party system. He noted that during the 2004 presidential election, political parties were actually “coalitions gathered around major presidential personalities.”[i] He went on to explain that coalitions were simply created out of choice for convenience since that was more accessible campaign funds and wide support from local politicians who were affiliated with any of the parties that composed a coalition. For instance, the Koalisyon ng Katapatan at Karanasan sa Kinabukasan (K-4) gathered around Gloria Arroyo, the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) was on Fernando Poe, and the Alyansa ng Pag-asa was centered on Raul Roco. A study conducted by Carl Lande many years ago reveals similar observation:
The typical Filipino politician has both a personal following and a personal system of alliances with numerous other politicians. Often he is a core or a peripheral member of some faction of consequence or has made temporary alliances with it or with some of its leaders. Almost always he is a member of a political party, though he may shift his affiliation for one party to another.[ii]
What should be taken into serious account is that these coalitions were formed for the purpose of winning political battles during a particular election only. After the election, the coalition simply disintegrates and politicians return to their respective political parties of affiliation. Coalitions are never heard of or nowhere to be found once the Congress resumes its regular session. There are simply politicians who either identify themselves with the administration or opposition or independent fiscalizers. Thus
The trouble with the Philippines is that it does not have a real party system; it does not have political parties in the sense that they are known, say, in the United States and the United Kingdom. Here political parties are basically non-ideological organizations used to promote personal and factional ambitions and goals.[iii]
Another important characteristic of Philippine political parties Professor Magno did notice is that coalitions were also engaged in political poaching to field politicians from other camps to join their ranks. For instance, in 2004 election, Sen. Rodolfo Biazon first aligned himself with Raul Roco’s Alyansa ng Pag-asa but was later allured by Poe’s KNP and finally settled with Arroyo’s K-4. Sen. John Osmeña bolted out from KNP and decided to join K-4, Rep. Carlos Padilla who was with Sen. Lacson’s faction became a senatorial candidate in the KNP’s line-up. Sen. Miriam Santiago, who was vying for a vice-presidential slate in the KNP camp, accepted Arroyo’s invitation to join the K-4 senatorial ticket after learning that Poe chose Legarda to be his running mate. To make the political scenario more ironic, the congressional line-ups for both K-4 and KNP coalition parties were affiliated wit Liberal party, Nacionalista party, and Nacionalist People’s Coalition.
This rampant practice of party-switching or party-hopping clearly indicates that our politicians have not embedded political principles. The editorial of Manila Bulletin writes
It’s a never-ending cycle. Political dynasties are perpetuated so that elite can continue to hold on to political and economic power. Politicians and candidates switch parties as easily as they change clothes. They more over to whichever party they think has the best chance of winning. They change their allegiance to presidential candidate who they think can give the sufficient campaign funding or is more likely to win.[iv]
As a result of this pursuit for personal aggrandizement, political parties or political ideologies have been marginalized. Accordingly
Philippine political parties lack coherent political programs. They do not take innovative or bold positions on the major issues. They advocate conservative political positions and avoid taking any stance that could alienate big sectors of the electorate. Thus, for instance, the major political parties have not come up with a feasible answer to the nation’s age-old problems of inequitable distribution of land, power, and wealth.[v]
__________________________________
[i] Alex Magno, Partyless, Available from http://newsflash.org/2003/05/ht/ht004025.htm;Internet;Accessed November 17, 2005.
[ii] Carl Lande, Leaders, factions, and parties: The structure of Philippine politics (Manila: Monograph), 7.
[iii] Philippine Daily Enquirer Editorial, Parties [On-Line]. Available from http://www.inq7/opi/2004/jan/13/opi_editorial-1.htm;Internet; Accessed November 17, 2005.
[iv] The Manila Bulletin Editorial, Partyless democracy [On-Line]. Available from http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2004/03/11OPED200403114530.html;Internet, Accessed November 17, 2005.
[v] Ibid.
Professor Alex Magno, a Filipino political scientist, observed that what the 1987 Constitution stipulated as multiparty system actually has resulted to a no-party system. He noted that during the 2004 presidential election, political parties were actually “coalitions gathered around major presidential personalities.”[i] He went on to explain that coalitions were simply created out of choice for convenience since that was more accessible campaign funds and wide support from local politicians who were affiliated with any of the parties that composed a coalition. For instance, the Koalisyon ng Katapatan at Karanasan sa Kinabukasan (K-4) gathered around Gloria Arroyo, the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) was on Fernando Poe, and the Alyansa ng Pag-asa was centered on Raul Roco. A study conducted by Carl Lande many years ago reveals similar observation:
The typical Filipino politician has both a personal following and a personal system of alliances with numerous other politicians. Often he is a core or a peripheral member of some faction of consequence or has made temporary alliances with it or with some of its leaders. Almost always he is a member of a political party, though he may shift his affiliation for one party to another.[ii]
What should be taken into serious account is that these coalitions were formed for the purpose of winning political battles during a particular election only. After the election, the coalition simply disintegrates and politicians return to their respective political parties of affiliation. Coalitions are never heard of or nowhere to be found once the Congress resumes its regular session. There are simply politicians who either identify themselves with the administration or opposition or independent fiscalizers. Thus
The trouble with the Philippines is that it does not have a real party system; it does not have political parties in the sense that they are known, say, in the United States and the United Kingdom. Here political parties are basically non-ideological organizations used to promote personal and factional ambitions and goals.[iii]
Another important characteristic of Philippine political parties Professor Magno did notice is that coalitions were also engaged in political poaching to field politicians from other camps to join their ranks. For instance, in 2004 election, Sen. Rodolfo Biazon first aligned himself with Raul Roco’s Alyansa ng Pag-asa but was later allured by Poe’s KNP and finally settled with Arroyo’s K-4. Sen. John Osmeña bolted out from KNP and decided to join K-4, Rep. Carlos Padilla who was with Sen. Lacson’s faction became a senatorial candidate in the KNP’s line-up. Sen. Miriam Santiago, who was vying for a vice-presidential slate in the KNP camp, accepted Arroyo’s invitation to join the K-4 senatorial ticket after learning that Poe chose Legarda to be his running mate. To make the political scenario more ironic, the congressional line-ups for both K-4 and KNP coalition parties were affiliated wit Liberal party, Nacionalista party, and Nacionalist People’s Coalition.
This rampant practice of party-switching or party-hopping clearly indicates that our politicians have not embedded political principles. The editorial of Manila Bulletin writes
It’s a never-ending cycle. Political dynasties are perpetuated so that elite can continue to hold on to political and economic power. Politicians and candidates switch parties as easily as they change clothes. They more over to whichever party they think has the best chance of winning. They change their allegiance to presidential candidate who they think can give the sufficient campaign funding or is more likely to win.[iv]
As a result of this pursuit for personal aggrandizement, political parties or political ideologies have been marginalized. Accordingly
Philippine political parties lack coherent political programs. They do not take innovative or bold positions on the major issues. They advocate conservative political positions and avoid taking any stance that could alienate big sectors of the electorate. Thus, for instance, the major political parties have not come up with a feasible answer to the nation’s age-old problems of inequitable distribution of land, power, and wealth.[v]
__________________________________
[i] Alex Magno, Partyless, Available from http://newsflash.org/2003/05/ht/ht004025.htm;Internet;Accessed November 17, 2005.
[ii] Carl Lande, Leaders, factions, and parties: The structure of Philippine politics (Manila: Monograph), 7.
[iii] Philippine Daily Enquirer Editorial, Parties [On-Line]. Available from http://www.inq7/opi/2004/jan/13/opi_editorial-1.htm;Internet; Accessed November 17, 2005.
[iv] The Manila Bulletin Editorial, Partyless democracy [On-Line]. Available from http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2004/03/11OPED200403114530.html;Internet, Accessed November 17, 2005.
[v] Ibid.