A plutarchy with populist tendencies

The title of this piece is inspired by Prof. Yuen Yuen Ang’s take on how China escaped the poverty trap. Ang argues that despite one party rule, China was able to forge merit-based mechanisms of accountability that led to its development. She describes it as an “autocracy with democratic characteristics”.

The Beijing Consensus refers to the political economy instituted by the People’s Republic under Deng Xiaoping, after Mao’s death in 1976. It is an alternate path to development, sitting in contrast to the failed Russian Soviet experiment with a command economy and all its inherent inefficiency, unwieldiness and poor incentives.

Under the China model, Beijing sets national economic policy through its five year plans. It then assigns to regional counterparts the task of meeting these targets through a “franchise-like” system. Each local government uses its own connections (“guanxi”) to attract investment to contribute to the the national goal under a process of “directed improvisation”.

Promotion within Communist party is based on performing well against official targets, relative to peers. Individuals rising to the highest policy-making body, the Politburo standing committee, prove themselves in towns and villages first, then at cities and regional levels.

The central government, in giving agency to regional executives, is able to keep its “distance” from local politics and avoid blame when their administration fails, due to ineptitude or corruption. It can overrule or interfere with local affairs, if public outcry reaches the capital. This is what gives the autocratic state some form of democratic accountability.

Beijing adapted local customs to mimic Western institutions that foster open competition within a marketplace of ideas. Instead of inter-party competition, the Chinese have created internal tournaments within the ruling party. They follow through on long-range plans, without disruption from corruptible, short-term election cycles that occur in developing states.

The Philippines has been characterised as a cacique democracy, from its inception in the 1890s with local and national politics dominated by a small set of wealthy, well-connected families. Even with American “tutelage” in democracy, participation in politics was largely confined to those with political pedigree and deep pockets.

A lack of policy consensus after independence from the 1950s to 1970s ensued leading to boom and bust cycles. Since EDSA ‘86, multiparty democracy is seen as chaotic, with limited participation and increasing concentration of power even within the partylist system.

But there has been considerable policy continuity in economic affairs since EDSA. This has led to increased rates of economic growth with greater capacity to handle internal contradictions of a market-based system, namely the disparity by which its spoils are shared.

Developmental spending enables political families to retain legitimacy. They are slowly moving away from direct forms of patronage to programmatic, institutional responses to poverty and other challenges. The evidence? … Free college, universal health care coverage and public school feeding programs, cash transfers to poor families, senior citizen benefits, among others.

Rivalry among political families has created conditions that mimic democratic accountability, stealing the thunder from progressive movements. Chief executives act as family figures making government seem near and personal.

Apo Marcos, Tita Cory, Steady Eddie, Pareng Erap, Ate Glo, PNoy and Tatay Digong were personages meant to instill a sense of filial piety in the nation through pakikisama and bayanihan, the illusion that we are all part of an “imagined community” despite our regional, ethnic differences.

The Philippines may thus be regarded as a plutarchy with populist tendencies. The adoption of democratic forms of governance without the institutions performing their function, has given rise to political dynasties. Through local customs, the Philippines has begun to develop a consensus for economic growth and development under a market-based system.

This has led to increased concentration of economic and political capital. To retain legitimacy, actors voluntarily initiate populist programs that increasingly rely on fiscal space afforded by growth to fund them, sustainably. This constitutes an alternate path to development, which might be dubbed the Manila Consensus. 

Towards a New Philippine Political Architecture

Tomorrow the Senate committees on electoral reforms and people's participation as well as constitutional amendments and revisions of codes will hold a hearing on political dynasties.

Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan announced it on Twitter.

When there is a monopoly, chances are your development will not be sustainable because only a few are benefitting and that's why you have so much poverty.

Dahil dito, tayo'y magkakaroon ng pagdinig para sa mga batas laban sa political dynasties. Magkita-kita po tayo bukas 9 am. pic.twitter.com/m01HiEfNRT

— Kiko Pangilinan (@kikopangilinan) February 14, 2018

In 2013, at the height of the #ScrapPork protests, I wrote a policy brief on reforming Philippine political institutions and governance. Instituting either a ban or a cap on political dynasties needs to go hand in hand with electoral reforms that would strengthen political parties. The paper is found below and can be downloaded here. Could this be an idea whose time has come?

Second Chances Don't Come Easy

In the rough and tumble love/hate game that often entangles lovers, a falling out often occurs which then recedes into a distant memory. Later on, nostalgia can reawaken their bond as memories of the old hurt inflicted dissolves away into rememberances of the good times they shared.

So it is with politics.

Just as in relationships, when the spouses, sons and daughters of fallen or discredited leaders seek to reclaim the mantle of their prominent forebears, the nagging question that often remains in the mind of every conscientious voter is, why ought I give him (or her) another chance at this?

Often times as in romantic relationships, emotions trump reason. But not always. In the lead up to the Democrat presidential nomination, former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton would have succeeded based on a nostalgia for the prosperous 90s when her husband Bill Clinton ran the White House. Had it not been for the impressive campaign waged by Sen Obama, things might have turned out differently for Mrs Clinton.

One could argue that although able to distinguish herself as a US senator, she was not able to differentiate herself from her husband, making his perceived weaknesses and frailties a liability for her unique brand. It might be easier in third world countries where patron-client networks prevail to perpetuate political dynasties. In the West where positions of power are more contestable, two conditions are needed for a political offspring or offshoot to "make it" in the eyes of voters.

One is to distinguish themselves as individuals. Two is to offer a substantial difference. The first one has to do with stepping out of the shadow of their prominent forebears without necessarily tarnishing their good name. The second is more important in countering perceived shortcomings of their patriarch.

John and John Quincy Adams were the first father and son to both serve as US presidents. John Sr succeeded George Washington and served for only one term due to the unpopularity of some of his decisions during the Anglo-French War. His son distinguished himself in international diplomacy before turning to politics.

George W Bush distinguished himself as governor of Texas first before being considered for higher office. He also countered perceived weaknesses in the image of his father George, Sr who promised "no new taxes" during his campaign, but reneged while in office. George Jr did this by following the mould of Ronald Reagan who cut taxes during the height of the Cold War (leading to the chronic deficits that his father had to correct, ironically).

In the Philippines, a former US colony with arguably the longest experience of democracy in Asia, despite an anti dynasty provision in its constitution, a small number of dominant families seems to rotate in occupying the halls of power. Senator Benigno Aquino III son of former president Corazon Aquino is running to succeed Mrs Gloria Arroyo daughter of the late former president Diosdado Macapagal. His running mate Sen Manuel Roxas II is a grandson and namesake of another former president.

Despite his lead in the polls (which many credit to public sympathy for his late mother, the icon of the people power era who passed away last year after a bout with cancer), he is facing a stiff challenge from his colleague in the Senate Manuel Villar who was the frontrunner before Aquino joined the race.

The columnist Tony Lopez, an ardent Aquino critic, cites two main reasons why he believes Aquino has been losing support in the polls. One, despite serving for three terms in the lower house and briefly in the Senate, Lopez says Aquino has failed to leave a distinguishing mark on either chamber. Two, he also suffers from perceived weaknesses in the Aquino brand foremost of which is failing to deliver on social justice with the flawed implementation of agrarian reform, Mrs Aquino's centerpiece program.

Yet despite these hindrances, Mr Aquino still has a good chance of clinching the plurality required in a multi-party field to win the presidency. This is due in large part to the alternatives that many see are equally if not more risky propositions. They include aside from Mr Villar, a self-made billionaire with questionable business and political dealings, a convicted former president Joseph Estrada, former Defense Sec Gilberto Teodoro, an ally of the unpopular Mrs Arroyo and a few more who have languished at the bottom of the polls.

For Mr Aquino, whose poll numbers have been slipping lately, to reclaim the momentum, he would need to address the two important issues raised here. Since he cannot do anything about the lack of tangible accomplishments in the past (the claim of not being tarnished with corruption as an achievement in itself notwithstanding), a good way to start would be to roll-out some well thought out policy prescriptions, which he has begun to do. Another would be to demonstrate how he would correct some of the failings that plagued his mother's administration.

One way he can concretely do just that would be to convince his clan comprised of more than 50 members to give up their stake in Hacienda Luisita, a sugar plantation where some 10,000 families work and live. This would signal to the vast majority belonging to the poorer social strata that he intends to make a clean break with the past. It would also signal to his oligarchic friends in the business world that they cannot curry favor with him.

Until he addresses these concerns, his slogan of bringing about people empowerment and the rule of law will continue to be viewed by many with the same scepticism of a star-crossed lover.