The good fight against political dynasties
The 20th Congress of the Philippines currently has within its sights the potential structural change to turn the political tide.
The current debates on the Anti-Dynasty Bill (simultaneously taking place in both upper and lower houses) have ventilated a healthy round of discourse both in legislative circles, civil society, and the public at large.
The consolidated Senate bill features many “safeguards” that can potentially limit political dynasties and protect the country from the ill effects of dynastic politics. These include the addressing of overlapping constituencies through restrictions at the national and local levels of government, inclusion of the party-list system in the list of covered positions, and a ban on succession of incumbents by relatives.
The glaring difference with the stand of anti-dynasty advocates is the consanguinity and affinity clause for both versions of the bill, with bills limiting it to the 2nd degree of consanguinity and affinity. Anti-dynasty advocates strongly recommend banning relatives up to the 4th degree of consanguinity and affinity to ensure that no excessive consolidation of power by one family takes place.
The house bill (authored by Representative Sandro Marcos and Speaker Boyet Dy) subscribes to the idea of anti-dynastic politics, but this version falls short of what can actually prevent political dynasties from enduring. The Anti-Dynasty Network (ADN) points out the following shortcomings of the Marcos-Dy version: lack of prohibition on succession, weak restrictions on overlapping constituencies, and the absence of the party-list as a position under the guardianship of the law. The bill also features a “within the same district” prohibition in the context of legislative posts, which is frankly not possible anyway under a single member district system.
The bill likewise supports the same consanguinity and affinity clause as the Senate version.
As both bills head towards the bicameral conference, it becomes apparent which anti-dynasty version is more effective in stunting the growth of dynasties and thus more ably carries the weight of the common good. While it seems that it will be an uphill battle for an outright prohibition, the hope remains that the essential elements of an effective anti-dynasty law will remain in the final version, if the more effective version prevails. In the current political climate, this hope remains dim and unencouraging, which means that the role that a concerned citizenry can potentially play increases.
The making of good laws is our responsibility as citizens as well because we hold the right to choose our lawmakers.
Finally, in a month dedicated to women, it seems apt that an anti-dynasty law that ends the concentration of power in a system that has traditionally favored the patriarchy should succeed. The long-term gains in the quality of leadership and democracy in our country certainly outweigh the short-sighted interests of those who stand to gain from a weak law being basement bargained and passed.
It is not only a gift to women — our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our friends — but also a promise to future generations of leaders who can be shaped by the needs and common interests of the country rather than the directives and incentives that come from being a member of a political dynasty.
Dr. Maria Elissa J. Lao is an associate professor at the Department of Political Science and director of the University Gender and Development Office of the Ateneo de Manila University.
