In the Philippines, a handful of entrenched families shape public power, from the presidency down to the barangays, the most local level of government. Yesterday voters were once again confronted with a host of recognizable names on the ballot for the midterm elections. The result is a democracy built on inherited privilege, not merit.
The race is being viewed as a dress rehearsal for the 2028 presidential contest — and a proxy war between two of the nation’s most powerful clans: the Marcoses and the Dutertes. Along with the Aquinos and the Macapagal-Arroyos, these dynasties have ruled the country since 2001.
The archipelago transitioned from authoritarian rule in 1986 with the overthrow of then-president Ferdinand Marcos, but the system still heavily favors political and economic elites. Current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr is the former president’s son. His sister is a senator, and his cousin serves as speaker of the House of Representatives.
Marcos Jr’s estranged vice president, Sara Duterte, belongs to another influential dynasty. The Duterte camp is positioning her as the next leader, despite an impeachment trial for an alleged death threat against the president, which is due to start in July.
She has denied the accusations. Her father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, is eyeing a return as Davao City mayor, even while awaiting trial in the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague for alleged crimes against humanity committed during his deadly war on drugs. His lawyers have asked the ICC’s pre-trial chamber to nullify his case and order his release.
A recent report from the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) found that more than half of the district representatives seeking re-election belong to dynasties, and at least 87 percent of provincial governments are led by members of established clans.
When a political system is hijacked like this, it destroys democratic opportunities for ordinary Filipinos, said Mong Palatino, a former legislator in the left-leaning Kabataan party.
“It’s not beneficial for citizens to choose candidates between two or three families. They crowd out new names because they have consolidated their power,” he added.
There are about two dozen political dynasties seeking to occupy at least five seats each in this election, the ICHRP report said. Local politics often serves as the launchpad for national dominance, and this year’s candidate list reads like a family tree: the Villars in Las Pinas, the Singsons in Ilocos Sur and the Revillas in Cavite, among others.
The Dutertes’ ascendance as one of the country’s most powerful political families began with their unbroken control of Davao City Hall for more than two decades, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism said.
At least 113 out of 149 city mayors belong to political dynasties, it added.
This is a historical problem, with roots going back hundreds of years to colonial times, when landowners emerged as power brokers, but it is getting worse. As of August last year, close to 80 percent of the country’s lawmakers belong to these groups.
The Philippines is not alone in having families dominate public life. India, Indonesia and Japan have also seen their share, as have Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. However, this kind of nepotism can deepen economic inequality, further dampening prospects for citizens, as well as damaging democratic representation and political diversity.
There are already mechanisms in place to curtail the influence of clans in the Philippines, but they have yet to be implemented. The 1987 Philippine Constitution calls for a ban on political dynasties. Legislators should urgently pass the enabling law to enforce this.
The law should clearly define what a “political dynasty” is and ban immediate family members from simultaneously or successively holding elective positions within a certain jurisdiction. This should be applied to local and national levels to eliminate the practice early on.
Reform would not come easily — it demands that lawmakers curb their own families’ power, but civil society can play a role by publicizing abuses and pushing for higher standards in leadership to pressure politicians and inform voters.
Dynasties endure not just through wealth or legacy, but because a system built on name recognition shuts out merit. Power stays within these clans, and ordinary Filipinos remain locked out.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS