See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309390546

Democratizing democracy in the Philippines

Conference Paper · October 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12797.56801

CITATIONS READS
0 9,286

1 author:

Sherlito Sable
University of Southeastern Philippines
14 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing research and extension model for Philippine colleges View project

Tunnel Effect Reverse: Peace, Security, and Development in the Philippine Policy Framework View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sherlito Sable on 24 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Abstract

This paper examines what the research communities say about the Philippine
democracy based on their findings, the deficiencies underlying its democratic practice,
and what reforms could be introduced to improve its democracy using taxonomic analytic
review. The current attributes of Philippine democracy from the very start until today are:
nominal democracy, democracy on the surface only, institutionally weak to make
democracy work, oligarchic interests pervade in the system, burgeoning of power and
affluence of the political elites making wealth inaccessible to the poor, unaccountable
decision-makers, absence of political equality in the allocation of powers among political
parties, and governance weakness with illusive representation in the very heart of policy
making. It is defective because its democratization did not emanate from the domestic
and sovereign project of the governed that will build arrangements to strengthen diversity
and social harmony and consent due to the fact that it is a blue print copied from the
colonial powers, rootless and ruthless because it did not evolve from the democratic
aspirations of the citizens and culture of complacency & lethargy due its failure to
articulate public voice that will chart out their destiny. To democratize Philippine
democracy, there is a need to bring democratic norms and ideals down to the level of
smaller units, and allow local units to articulate self-rule of their territories as states under
a federalized regime with due regard to the norms of shared responsibility, shared
economy, shared values, and shared leadership in governance.

Key words: democracy, self-rule, shared rule, federalism, democratization.

Prof. Sherlito C. Sable taught at the College of Development Management-University of Southeastern

Philippines. He was former dean of the College of Governance and Business-USEP, and Acting Director of
Mindanao Center for Policy Studies. He has given lectures on the topic governance and development
administration. He was research consultant to WB-MRDP and US Catholic Council-Catholic Relief
Services, and other Agencies. He has 10 publications in Academia.edu.
 2

Democratizing Democracy in the Philippines: A Taxonomic Analytic Review

Prof. Sherlito C. Sable
(October 27-28, 2016, SECDEA Samal, Philippines)

Introduction

In this paper the author presented first what the research communities say about

the Philippine democracy based on their findings, the deficiencies underlying its

democratic practice, and what reforms could be introduced to improve its democracy.

The methodology used was simple meta-analysis of existing literatures on democracy in

the Philippines with complementation of democracy in historical context. Qualitative

meta-synthesis is always an integration of research findings, as opposed to a comparison

or critique of them using taxonomic analysis of research findings of the research

community.1 While taxonomic analysis as an approach of integrating research findings

show the conceptual range of findings and provide a foundation for the development of

conceptual descriptions and models, theories, or working hypotheses.2 Thus this paper

used both in developing a framework of coming up comprehensive model of a possibility

of democratizing democracy in the Philippines.

Context: The Praxis of Democracy in the Philippines

From 2008 to 2010 according to the democracy index report of the economic

intelligence unit of the Economist3 the Philippines ranked number 74 in 2010 and 77 in

1
Sandelowski, Margarete & Julie Barroso. 2007. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. 11
West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.p.199.

2
IBID, pp.199-200.
3
The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2010.
https://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf. Retrieved Sept. 15, 2016.
 3

2008 with a 6.124 score in 2008 and 2010 respectively. The score signifies the Philippines

has a flawed democracy5. Specifically, the Philippines have a low score in the democracy

indicators6 specifically in the areas of functioning of government (governance),

underdeveloped political culture, and political participation. Impliedly, the economists’

democracy index report in 2008 to 2010 showed that the Philippines’ democracy was

uncertain along the areas of governance, political culture and participation.

Moreover, in the study of Anthony (2004)7, the notion of the “Philippines’

inability to consolidate its political and historical project of democratic consolidation

came to the fore because of a number of structural problems that continues until today.”

In this study, mentioned was made by Anthony that there are a good number of constrains

that hampered the Philippines to reach its journey to fully democratize itself. These

constrains are deep political cleavages, flip-flopping national policies, political

instability, poor infrastructure, and widening gap between rich and poor.8 Deep political

cleavages refer to the deeply rooted divide in political views among the politicians9. One

4
The index values used by the economist intelligence unit are used to place countries within one of four
types of regimes 1) Full democracies--scores of 8-10, 2) Flawed democracies--score of 6 to 7.9, 3) Hybrid
regimes--scores of 4 to 5.9, 4) Authoritarian regimes--scores below 4. Threshold points for regime types
depend on overall scores that are rounded to one decimal point.

5
Flawed Democracy is defined by the Economist Intelligence unit as countries having free and fair
elections and even if there are problems (such as infringements on media freedom), basic civil liberties
respected. However, there are significant weaknesses in other aspects of democracy, including problems in
governance, an underdeveloped political culture and low levels of political participation.

6
Democracy indicators were free and fair elections, respect of basic civil liberties, functioning of
government, developed political culture, political participation.

7
Anthony, Mely Caballero.2004. Where on the road to democracy is the Philippines? Nanyang
Technological University (Singapore). Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies. A Discussion Paper
(UNISCI)

8
IBID, p. 2.
9
Concise Oxford Dictionary.
 4

of which is the fact that those who won in the elections were oligarchs who were running

for public office due to their oligarchic interests10. From this vantage the poor were

merely attendants to the achievement of the elite’s desired goals. This has become the

Pandora’s Box11 of continuing lapses in governance as mentioned earlier: flip-flopping

national policies, political instability, poor infrastructure, and widening gap between

rich and poor. These are the outcomes of oligarchic politics.

Furthermore, Miranda, et.al. (2011)12 rigorous re-examination of the concept of

democracy and its measurement concludes that by no means can the Philippines be

considered a democracy. The re-examination of Miranda of the Philippine democracy

brought to the fore the result that Philippine democracy is just a democracy of formality.

He argued that,

“Admittedly, the country has a relatively long tradition of formal

democracy confirmed by numerous constitutional and statutory
provisions stipulating the character of its political institutions and the
processes of governance. Despite this democratic façade, however, the
dynamic operations of its politics demonstrably hew closer to oligarchic
rather than democratic lines before, during, and even after Marcos”13

10
Carlton, Eric.1996. The Few and the Many: A Typology of Elites.(Brookfield, VT: Scolar Press 1996,
pp.4–21. Elite theory has shown that some elites are indeed defined by their relationship to the means of
production. Others, however, have become elites as a result of their access to other power resources, such
as official positions in the government. See also in See C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 1956), pp. 259– 62. Elites emerge whenever coercive power, mobilization power,
official positions, and/or political rights are “… distributed in highly exclusive or concentrated ways.”
Winters, “Oligarchy and Democracy in Indonesia,” p. 13.

11
Pandora's Box is an artifact in Greek mythology, taken from the myth of Pandora's creation in Hesiod's
Works and Days. The "box" was actually a large jar given to Pandora("all-gifted, all-giving"), which
contained all the evils of the world(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/).

12
Miranda, Felipe, et.al.2011. Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy. U.P. Complex,
Commonwealth Avenue Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippipnes: CHRP and United Nations
Development Program.p.182.

13
IBID, p.23.
 5

This line of argument supported the theory of oligarchic politics of Anthony

(2004). This is strongly stressed in Miranda’s wordings of democratic facade14. The

15
machinations of the oligarchic elites occupying the power apparatus of the state

pervaded in the system making it an exclusive privilege to insidiously to take advantage

of the state in the furtherance of their ends. The probable outcome of this democratic

façade is the burgeoning of power and affluence of the political elites making wealth

inaccessible to the poor.

Additionally, Reyes (2012)16 argued that,

“…the last fifteen years of studies on the state of the Philippines’ progress
toward democratization qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of both
collectively paint a portrait of a nation struggling to prove itself worthy
of its claims to be a democratic state”.

In the same vein, Reyes mentioned in his argument that the Philippines is still

struggling to become democratic. There were discernable evidences that the Philippine

democracy is experiencing uncertainties in terms of “popular control over decision

makers and political equality of those who exercise that control.”17 Reyes implied the

persistent issue of holding decision makers accountable to their decisions while the

14
. Hellinger, Daniel, Judd, Dennis R..1994.The Democratic Façade. Reno, NV, U.S.A: Wadsworth Pub
Co. The concept that it is a fallacy that the common man has any say in the big decisions made in the
country

15
Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (Translated from the French by
Robert Hurley. 1978). London: Penguin Books. See also: It is defined by Foucault “…as the strategies in
which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state'
apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies.”Pp92-93.

16
Reyes, Miguel Paolo P. Rating Philippine Democratization: A Review of Democratization Metrics.
ASIAN DEMOCRACY REVIEW Vol. 1 (2012): pp.182-198 Third World Studies Center, College of
Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines-Diliman. ISSN 2244-5633.

17
IBID. p.193.
 6

second emphasized more of political equality in the exercise of such control. Political

equality18 in this sense is veering away from collusive pattern of behavior.

Finally, the most comprehensive arguments of Dressel (2011)19 was presented in

the international political science review stating that,

“Democracy in the Philippines is a paradox. It was the first country in the

region to topple authoritarian rule. Signs of a vibrant democracy are
extensive: high voter turnout, civic engagement, institutional
arrangements that theoretically promote accountability and safeguard
rights and liberties. Yet the flaws in the democratic process are also
extensive: elite dominance, institutional weakness, and widespread abuse
of public office, which suggest true representation is largely illusory”.

Similar with aforementioned arguments from Anthony (2004), the Economist

Intelligence Unit Report (2010), Miranda (2011), and Reyes (2012), Dressel (2011)

raised the argument of extensive oligarchic politics dominating the state, governance

weakness, and illusive representation as the hallmarks of un-democracy in the democracy

in the Philippines.

Synthesis

Taxonomic analysis, as shown in table 1, revealed the attributes of the current

condition of the Philippine democracy based on the research findings of the

researchers’ democracy studies. These are superficial or nominal democracy, democracy

at the surface only, weak institutionally in making democracy works, Oligarchic

interests pervade in the system of democracy, burgeoning of power and affluence of the

18
Political Equality from the point of view of the author refers to holding all political parties equal
regardless of party affiliations.

19
Dressel, Björn.2011. The Philippines: how much real democracy?Australian National University (ANU),
Canberra, Australia. International Political Science Review. ips.sagepub.com DOI:
10.1177/0192512111417912. Academia.edu.
 7

political elites making wealth inaccessible to the poor, unaccountable decision-makers,

absence of political equality in the allocation of powers among political parties,

governance weakness, and illusive representation in the very heart of policy making.

Table 1: Taxonomic analysis of the researchers findings

Researchers/Institutional Research Conceptual Synthesis Statements of findings constituting conceptual synthesis Emergent meanings
The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2010. Philippines’ democracy flawed democracy . Superficial democracy
https://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_ was uncertain along the having free and fair elections and even if there are problems (such . Nominal democracy
web.pdf. Retrieved Sept. 15, 2016. areas of governance, as infringements on media freedom), basic civil liberties respected. .Democracy on the surface
political culture and However, there are significant weaknesses in other aspects of only
participation democracy, including problems in governance, an underdeveloped . Institutionally weak to
political culture and low levels of political participation make democracy work.
Anthony, Mely Caballero.2004. Where on the road to Oligarchic Democracy “Philippines’ inability to consolidate its political and historical Oligarchic interests pervade
democracy is the Philippines? Nanyang Technological project of democratic consolidation came to the fore because of a in the system of democracy
University (Singapore). Institute of Defense and number of structural problems that continues until today.”
Strategic Studies. A Discussion Paper (UNISCI)
Miranda, Felipe, et.al.2011. Chasing the Wind: Democratic Façade, and “Admittedly, the country has a relatively long tradition of formal burgeoning of power and
Assessing Philippine Democracy. U.P. Complex, democratic formalities, democracy confirmed by numerous constitutional and statutory affluence of the political
Commonwealth Avenue Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Oligarchic Democracy provisions stipulating the character of its political institutions and elites making wealth
Philippipnes: CHRP and United Nations Development embedded in the power the processes of governance. Despite this democratic façade, inaccessible to the poor
Program.p.182. apparatus 20of the state however, the dynamic operations of its politics demonstrably hew
closer to oligarchic rather than democratic lines before, during,
and even after Marcos
Reyes, Miguel Paolo P. Rating Philippine Democratic Façade, and “…the last fifteen years of studies on the state of the Philippines’ Unaccountable decision-
Democratization: A Review of Democratization democratic formalities, progress toward democratization qualitative, quantitative, or a makers, absence of political
Metrics. ASIAN DEMOCRACY REVIEW Vol. 1 Oligarchic Democracy combination of both collectively paint a portrait of a nation equality in the allocation of
(2012): pp.182-198 Third World Studies Center, embedded in the power struggling to prove itself worthy of its claims to be a democratic powers among political
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of apparatus 21of the state state”. parties
the Philippines-Diliman. ISSN 2244-5633 “popular control over decision makers and political equality of
those who exercise that control resides in the oligarchs.”22
Dressel, Björn.2011. The Philippines: how much real Oligarchic Democracy “Democracy in the Philippines is a paradox. It was the first Governance weakness and
democracy?Australian National University (ANU), embedded in the power country in the region to topple authoritarian rule. Signs of a illusive representation in the
Canberra, Australia. International Political Science apparatus 23of the state vibrant democracy are extensive: high voter turnout, civic very heart of policy making.
Review. ips.sagepub.com DOI: engagement, institutional arrangements that theoretically promote
10.1177/0192512111417912. Academia.edu. accountability and safeguard rights and liberties. Yet the flaws in
the democratic process are also extensive: elite dominance,
institutional weakness, and widespread abuse of public office,
which suggest true representation is largely illusory

Philippine Democracy: Is the country really democratic?

In this section the author would like to present how deficient democracy is in the

Philippines as presented in the studies conducted by social scientists and political

20
Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (Translated from the French by
Robert Hurley. 1978). London: Penguin Books. See also: It is defined by Foucault “…as the strategies in
which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state'
apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies.”Pp92-93.

21
Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (Translated from the French by
Robert Hurley. 1978). London: Penguin Books. See also: It is defined by Foucault “…as the strategies in
which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state'
apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies.”Pp92-93.

22
IBID. p.193.
23
Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (Translated from the French by
Robert Hurley. 1978). London: Penguin Books. See also: It is defined by Foucault “…as the strategies in
which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state'
apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies.”Pp92-93.
 8

economists. The author randomly selected literatures, for the purpose of taxonomic

analysis, that are relevant to the question on the deficiencies of democracy and relate it to

how democracy is going on in the Philippines after which an ambitious extraction of

emergent meanings is conducted to generate possible alternatives. Specifically, it focuses

on the question whether the Philippines in the actual practice is consistent with the

theoretical inspirations of democracy as Lucham, et, al.(1998) stated,

“…especially in terms of the way disadvantaged groups - including women

experience citizenship in democratic polities, and whether democracy as a
system can meet the demands of ordinary people, particularly the poor, as
well as reconciling conflicting expectations regarding social equity and
economic growth.”24

Democratization as an ongoing domestic and sovereign project building

arrangements to strengthen diversity and social harmony and consent

Luckham argued as shown in the analysis that democratization is not just a

“process of implanting formal institutions of liberal democracy, but a project of norm

creation and cultural change to facilitate a democratic politics which accommodates

diversity, opposition, and which aims at building social consensus.” This brings to

the fore the concept democratization as an evolving project of the sovereign state

in building arrangements that will strengthen political diversity and social consent.

Democratization is not a linear adherence to the platform of liberal democracy

from some hegemonic source.

The implantations of the hegemony have to some extent nothing to do in the

emerging norms that will strengthen social consent. The conceptual synthesis of the

Luckham’s argumentations pointed towards the rejection of implantations of the formal

24
Luckha m , Robin, Anne Marie Goetz, et.al. 1998. Democratic Institutions and Politics in the Context of
Inequality, Poverty, and Conflict. Institute of Development Studies. WP104. University of Sussex,
England.
 9

institutions of liberal democracy. It is a continuous search of political strategy to create

mechanisms that will facilitate diversity and social consensus. It appeared on the

analysis of Miranda25, Reyes26, and Dressel27 that Philippine democracy has not

really democratized itself as it just manifests democratic façade with formalities

peculiar to oligarchic democracy embedded in the power structure of the state. The

formal institutions of Philippine democracy are peopled by oligarchs since it has been a

republic in 1898.28 Hence, it could be surmised that until today (1998 to early 2016)

democracy in the Philippines is just a façade and representations were just at the level of

rhetoric.

Table 2: Democratization in democratic institutions and Politics in the

Context of Inequality, Poverty, and Conflict
Researchers/Institutional Conceptual Synthesis Statements of findings Emergent
Research constituting conceptual meanings
synthesis
Luckha m , Robin, Anne “Democratization is not just a Democratization
Marie Goetz, et.al. 1998. Not implantations of process of implanting formal should be a
Democratic Institutions Formal institutions institutions of liberal domestic and
and Politics in the Context of Liberal democracy, but a project of sovereign
of Inequality, Poverty, and Democracy norm creation and cultural project building
Conflict. Institute of Norm creation to change to facilitate a arrangements to
Development Studies. facilitate diversity, democratic politics which strengthen
WP104. University of opposition for accommodates diversity, diversity and
Sussex, England building social opposition, and which aims at social harmony
consensus building social consensus.” and consent

Rootless and Ruthless Democracy

Teejankee (2002)29in his study “Electoral Politics in the Philippines” argued

that the kind of democracy the Philippines has adopted came from its sponsor, the

Americans. The Political institutional norms of the Americans were implanted to the

25
Miranda, 20011.
26
Reyes, 2012.
27
Dressel, 2011.
28
Kimura, Matasaka.2003. The Emergence of the Middle Classes & Political Change in the Philippines.
Journal of Developing Economies(June,2003).pp.264-84.
29
Teehankee, Julio.2002. Electoral Politics in the Philippines. Journal of Electoral Politics in Southeast.
And East Asia. Singapore: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
 10

DNA of the Philippine politics. This is where the politicos of the Philippine Republic

inhibited the practice of Pork barrel in the national budget. Paredes (1989)30 as quoted by

Teehankee mentioned that “…the Philippines as a conquest colony underwent political

development predicated on the interest, influence and power of the colonial authorities.”

Thus, the Philippine Democracy can be predicated as a rootless and ruthless

democracy31. The democratization of the Philippine democracy can only commence

when it is consistent with the Philippine cultural heritage and Filipino Political

aspirations. Ruthless democracy is characteristic of the fact that only the oligarchs benefit

from it.

Table 3: Rootless and Ruthless democracy

Researchers/Institutional Conceptual Synthesis Statements of findings constituting Emergent
Research conceptual synthesis meanings
 “The Philippines as a
Teehankee, Julio.2002. conquest colony underwent
Electoral Politics in the political development
Philippines. Journal of predicated on the interest,
Electoral Politics in Southeast. influence and power of the
And East Asia. Singapore: colonial authorities” Rootless, and
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.  Elections and other Ruthless Democracy
democratic institutions were
Colonialist sponsored primarily imported into the
democracy Philippines from Western
models. The emergence of
institutions such as
constitutional law, the secret
ballot, the referendum,
political parties and
legislature in the Philippines
was a product of American
colonialism.

Culture of complacency & Lethargy due to failed democratic aspirations

Carlos, et. al.(2010) comprehensively described democracy in the Philippines in

the book “Democratic Deficits in the Philippines: What is to be Done?” as incorrigibly

30
Paredes, R.R., ed. 1989. Philippine Colonial Democracy. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University
Press.
31
Rootless democracy refers to a democracy that is not reflective of the Filipino aspirations, while ruthless
democracy simply manifests the fact that only the oligarchs benefit from it.
 11

developed culture of “complacency and lethargy”32 due to failed democratic aspirations

of the citizens. Democracy being highly oligarchic and highly procedural in praxis

unwittingly developed among the governed the notion that those institutional problems of

government is systemic and part of what democracy is all about and it is a way of life

from which nothing else can be done but just accept it as “it is just the way it is…” The

Filipino democratic aspirations metamorphosed during the Spanish regime from which

the country was under the colony of Spain in three hundred thirty three years from what

history called Indio identity of the Filipinos during the Spanish regime. Then the

Americans came implanting liberal democracy exactly similar with their democratic

fundamentals. Japan came appointing a puppet leader beholden to the emperor.

Independence was granted by the Americans in 1946 but not the fundamentals of liberal

democracy. The Philippine constitution of 1935 was basically a Xeroxed copy of the

American constitutional democracy. Until today the Philippine constitution although

reflect the sovereign will of the Filipinos but the injected DNA of liberalism remained

intact. But what are the democratic aspirations of the Filipinos? Until today the

Philippines is not treated as co-equal sovereign state among those once upon a time the

country’s colonizers, the modern day hegemony. The aspiration for a co-equal treatment

is one democratic norm that defines what democracy is. This aspiration remained elusive

among the marginalized sector of the Philippine society because the apparatus of the

oligarchs is still a disturbing phenomenon. Only the rich have the access to occupy the

helm of power from national to local elective positions. Only the few rich sector

benefited democracy. These have severe impact to the ordinary citizens. There is massive

32
Complacency and Lethargy a state of being satisfied with utmost passivity with how things are and not
wanting to change them.
 12

insensitivity towards the evil of the nexus between greed and affluence in the political

sphere. What was learned from the three people power revolutions remained muddled

and uncertain. Given the highly pluralized culture of the Filipinos without mention on

how they value things in life, a highly centralized liberal democracy anchored on the

mythical character of representative democracy, they found much reason to just accept

the orthodoxy of politics although negating from their true aspiration of crafting their

own destiny.

Table 3: Culture of complacency & Lethargy due failed democratic aspirations

Researchers/Institutional Conceptual Statements of findings constituting Emergent
Research Synthesis conceptual synthesis meanings
Carlos, Clarita R., Dennis M. Democratic deficits are the consequences of our
Lalata, Dianne C. Despi and failures as a people to cope with the challenges Culture of
Portia R. Carlos. 2010. of development as we confront them every day. complacency
Democratic Deficits in the Public Democratic deficits are the broken promises of & Lethargy
Philippines: What is to be Done?. Insensitivity political leaders, the apathy and procrastination due failed
13 Bautista Street., University of of our people, the failure of our institutions, the democratic
the Philippines Campus,
towards the nexus alienation of the marginalized sectors of our aspirations
Diliman, Quezon City: Center for between greed society, the apparent incorrigibility of some
Political and Democratic and affluence in officials and rank-and-file government workers,
Reform, Inc. & Konrad the political or simply our unwillingness to devise ways and
Adenauer Foundation means for our communities to have a fighting
sphere chance. Have we grown so numb and insensitive
to the ills of our society such that what other
countries perceive as deficits, we merely regard
as inconveniences that we can live with day in
and day out?

Synthesis

Is the Philippines really democratic? Taxonomic analysis of the researchers

(Luckham , Robin, Anne Marie Goetz, et.al. 1998) reviewed in this inquiry showed that

meaningful democratization should be anchored on domestic, peculiarities and sovereign

will of the state in order to build arrangements that will strengthen diversity, social

harmony and consent. Foremost was the stress made on the need for nationalistic

beginnings of democracy featuring the people’s uniquely woven aspirations. Secondly,

from the study of Teehankee(2002) the review outcome showed two major themes:

rootless, and ruthless democracy. Democracy of the Philippines is a democracy

 13

sponsored by the foreign powers. Thus, a systemic implantation of their ideological frame

was intentionally embossed in the very core of the Philippine Constitution. This implied

that the very constitution of the Philippines may have not been reflective of the true

Philippine cultural and democratic aspirations. In the same vein, the oligarchic attributes

of the Philippine democracy make it ruthless from which the people specially the

marginalized were systematically deprived of a place in the political sphere of the state.

Greed and affluence have become a norm in the political competition. Lastly, the meta

analytic review result on Carlos, et.al. (2010) authors of the book “Democratic Deficits in

the Philippines: What is to be done?” of the Center for Political and Democratic Reform,

Inc. & Konrad Adenauer Foundation revealed a culture of complacency & Lethargy

among people due to failed democratic aspirations: co-equal treatment in the global

governance, equal access to political competition, and being at the mercy of the oligarchs

in crafting their destiny, and their voices as voices in the wilderness.

The Progressive Alternative: Bringing the Ideals of Democracy to the level of

Smaller Units

Schumacher in his book, “The Small is Beautiful”33 argued the need to change

paradigm in governance from bigger is better to small is beautiful. Such a paradigm could

be applicable in crafting the political arrangement for the citizens to optimally experience

democracy within the purview of their aspirations grounded on their culture and value

system. Schumacher stated in comprehensive philosophical thought that,

“We must therefore construct a political system so perfect that human wickedness
disappears and everybody behaves well, no matter how much wickedness there
may be in him or her. In fact, it is widely held that everybody is born good; if one
turns into a criminal or an exploiter, this is the fault of 'the system'…there is

33
Schumacher, Ernst.Friedrich. 1973. Small is Beautiful: A study of Economics as if People Mattered.
London: Vintage Books.
 14

wisdom in smallness if only on account of the smallness and patchiness of human

knowledge, which relies on experiment far more than on understanding. It is
moreover obvious that men organized in small units will take better care of their
bit of land or other natural resources than anonymous companies or
megalomaniac governments which pre- tend to themselves that the whole universe
is their legitimate quarry.”34

In this proposition, it was argued by Schumacher that it is a political system that

needs to be changed from a big system to a small system likened to a production system

of the entire economic system. Schumacher here argued that like an economic system

political system attains perfection when the smaller ones were perfectly articulated. There

is no such thing as perfect supra system or bigger system. It has to start from the small

units. Hence, from the stand point of democratization, it has to start from the smaller

units to approximate democratization of the entire system. The clamor of the citizens to

be vested of co-equal rights would be heard and they could maximally conduct check and

balance mechanisms, thus, holding their elected officials directly accountable to them. If

every small units of the state conduct the same with at least precision then the entire

summation of small unit of the state being democratized shall transform the state at the

national scale into a democratic state. Therefore, in democratizing the country it must

start from the small units. The small units of government could be a region or province

depending on how the law will allocate the extent of their democratic rights and

privileges. This is democracy from the bottom rooted from the culture and values of the

grassroots.

Proposed Model: Localizing Democracy

Shown in figure 1 is a concept map of divergent directions of democratic

governance of the state. The first one is a direction of full concentration of power of the
34
IBID. pp.2-20.
 15

state at the center with the intention to maximize control to minimize conflict in policy

issues affecting directly public life. The goal is to strengthen state power at the center

using procedures and institutions of government. This is what Kaldor, M. and Vashee, B.

(eds), 1997)35 described as procedural democracy. Kaldor et al defined it as democratic

formalities articulated in the institutions, procedures or routines of democratic systems36.

It is a democracy that strengthens the filtering mechanisms before the state acts and

decides. The filterers are the Cratos/bureaus37 . The filterers’ job is to declare citizenship

action as something within the purview of the rules and procedures. The intention of the

filtering mechanisms is to legitimize citizen’s expression/action first before it is

recognized within the realm of “officiality”38. Centralized control is coercive and

exclusionary if unchecked. It could metamorphose into aristocracy. There is democracy

but it brings about power concentration at the center legitimized by rules and procedures.

The danger of rent seeking behavior39 among those power occupants will unfold.

Political economists defined bribes as rent seeking. Tyranny of the central power here is

strengthened. This is the extreme of procedural democracy.

35
Kaldor, M. and Vashee, B. (eds), 1997, New Wars: Restructuring the Global Military Sector,
London:Pinter and Vejvoda, I., 1997, 'Democratization in Central and East European Countries',
International Affairs, Vol 73 No 1: 59-82 , 1999, New and Old Wars, Cambridge: Polity Press
36
IBID.
37
Power of the Office as mandated by law.
38
Officiality refers to having been declared official or passing within what the procedures require.
39
Murphy, K., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W. 1993 ‘Why is Rent-Seeking so Costly to Growth?’, American
Economic Review, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 409–14.
 16

The other direction of state democracy is populist democracy.40 Huber et al.

(1997) pointed out that, “this second democratic revolution not only increased citizen

involvement in the affairs of government, it expanded the concept of citizenship itself to

cover economic and social as well as political entitlements.” This was criticized by

advocates of procedural democracy as anarchic. Populist democracy aims for full de-

concentration and dispersal of power at the center to the citizens. Norms like,

empowerment, participation, devolution and autonomy are the central themes of populist

democracy. The implementation of RA 7160 may have a tinge of hope for the advocates

of populist democracy. But the law is actually an oxymoron41. While the law provides

autonomy to the LGU’S it strengthens the supervisory and control powers of the DILG.

In other words, while certain functions were devolved to the LGU’S budgetary

requirements of those devolved functions are not provided. It only adds burdens to the

LGU’S. Control and Supervisory powers are the core themes of procedural democracy. In

the political sphere LGU’S are even used as machineries of the oligarchic politics of

ensuring majority votes during elections. The clamors, then of the massive spectrum of

the marginalized sectors for the realization of their democratic aspirations: co-equal

beings, right to craft their future destiny as communities are undermined. With this,

procedural democracy advocates view this as politically costly on their quest for power.

Hence, the proposed model of bringing democracy at the local level is federalism.

Federalism is the convergence of the claims of procedural and populist democracy. It

provides a framework of controlling political oligarchs and progressive alternative groups

40
Huber, E., Rueschemeyer, D. and Stephens, J.D., 1997, 'The Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy:
Formal, Participatory and Social Dimensions, Comparative Politics, Vol 29 No 3: 232-242
41
Oxymoron is defined as a term that contradicts itself.
 17

to always clash in pursuit of realizing democratic aspirations. Montes (2006)42 pointed

out that,

“In federalism, sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central

governing authority and constituent political units, like states or provinces.
Simply, federalism can be viewed as a system that accommodates both self-rule
(of the constituent unit) and shared rule (at the federal level).”

Fundamental to federalism are the two basic democratic principles of self-rule of

the constituent units, and shared rule at the federal level. Self-rule of the constituent units

is territorially defined for the governments of the constituent units, while shared rule is

referring to governance of common institutions. State governance is done within the

purview of self-rule, while federal governance is undertaken within the context of

common institutions. Watts (1999)43 argued that,

“…federation represents a distinct species in which neither the federal nor the
constituent governments (state) are constitutionally subordinate to the other; each
has sovereign powers derived from the constitution rather than from another level
of government.”

The most import feature of federalism is self-rule. Self-rule of the states ensures

voice at the local level (constituent units). The long awaited democratic aspirations can

be articulated in the small units: provinces, regions). Self-rule is not just a political

variable. It is also associated with economic concepts, for example the phenomenon of

enclave economy being rampant in underdeveloped community. There is a resource

42
Móntes, Jr., Raphael N. 2006. Understanding Federalism. International Conference on Federalism and
Multiculturalism held last 3 to 4 October 2005.Available at http://localgov.up.edu.ph/feder-alism-and-
multiculturalism-montes-understanding-federalism.html, citing Gamper.
43
Watts, R.L.1999. Comparing Federal Systems. 2 nd ed. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University
Press.
 18

enclave economy44 in the local level. They have potential economic resource base that

should be decided only by them that could bring about economic prosperity to the people.

In the context of Mindanao, Bangsamoro issues can be possibly addressed when they are

given the chance for a self-rule strategy under a federalized system of government. While

shared-rule at the federal level implies the need for the norm of co-responsibility among

the states to run the federal government. The doctrine of shared responsibility, shared

economy, shared values, and shared leadership come to the fore. Oligarchic and

grassroots politics are optimally converging in the deliberation of issues and problems of

the country.

Figure 1: Concept Map of divergent directions of democratic governance of the State

44
An enclave economy is defined as an economic system in which an export based industry dominated by
international or non-local capital extracts resources or products from another country.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave economy (retrieved Oct. 2, 2016).
 19

Synthesis

The model argues that too much adherence to the practice procedural democracy

to maximize control of citizens defeats the principles of democracy. It is prone to tyranny

of rules of institutions, while on the other hand, relaxing the rules of institutions to

maximize citizen’s voice could also be prone to anarchy. There are also limits to populist

movements. There must be a point where both can have an optimal convergence. This

figure may be of help:

Results and Conclusion

On the basis of the analysis presented the current attributes of Philippine

democracy from the very start until today are: nominal democracy, democracy on the

surface only, institutionally weak to make democracy work, oligarchic interests pervade

in the system, burgeoning of power and affluence of the political elites making wealth

inaccessible to the poor, unaccountable decision-makers, absence of political equality in

the allocation of powers among political parties, and governance weakness with illusive

representation in the very heart of policy making.

 20

It is defective because its democratization did not emanate from the domestic and

sovereign project that builds arrangements to strengthen diversity and social harmony and

consent, rootless and ruthless democracy because it did not evolve from the democratic

aspirations of the citizens and culture of complacency & lethargy due its failure to

articulate public voice that will chart out their destiny.

To democratize Philippine democracy, there is a need to bring democratic norms

and ideals down to the level of smaller units, and allow local units to articulate self-rule

of their territories as states under a federalized regime with due regard to the norms of

shared responsibility, shared economy, shared values, and shared leadership in

governance.
 21

References

Anthony, Mely Caballero.2004. Where on the road to democracy is the

Philippines? Nanyang Technological University (Singapore). Institute of Defense
and Strategic Studies. A Discussion Paper (UNISCI).

Carlton, Eric.1996. The Few and the Many: A Typology of Elites.(Brookfield, VT:
Scolar Press 1996, pp.4–21

________Concise Oxford Dictionary.

Dressel, Björn.2011. The Philippines: how much real democracy?Australian

National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia. International Political Science
Review. ips.sagepub.com DOI: 10.1177/0192512111417912. Academia.edu.

Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (Translated

from the French by Robert Hurley. 1978).

Hellinger, Daniel, Judd, Dennis R..1994.The Democratic Façade. Reno, NV,

U.S.A:Wadsworth Pub Co.

Huber, E., Rueschemeyer, D. and Stephens, J.D., 1997, 'The Paradoxes of

Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participatory and Social Dimensions,
Comparative Politics, Vol 29 No 3: 232-242

Kaldor, M. and Vashee, B. (eds), 1997, New Wars: Restructuring the Global
Military Sector, London:Pinter and Vejvoda, I., 1997, 'Democratization in
Central and East European Countries', International Affairs, Vol 73 No 1: 59-82 ,
1999, New and Old Wars, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kimura, Matasaka.2003. The Emergence of the Middle Classes & Political

Change in the Philippines. Journal of Developing Economies(June,2003).pp.264-
84.

Luckham , Robin, Anne Marie Goetz, et.al. 1998. Democratic Institutions and
Politics in the Context of Inequality, Poverty, and Conflict. Institute of
Development Studies. WP104. University of Sussex, England.

Miranda, Felipe, et.al.2011. Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy.

U.P. Complex, Commonwealth Avenue Diliman, Quezon City 1101,
Philippipnes: CHRP and United Nations Development Program.p.182.

Móntes, Jr., Raphael N. 2006. Understanding Federalism. International

Conference on Federalism and Multiculturalism held last 3 to 4 October
 22

2005.Available at http://localgov.up.edu.ph/feder-alism-and-multiculturalism-
montes-understanding-federalism.html, citing Gamper.
Murphy, K., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W. 1993 ‘Why is Rent-Seeking so Costly
to Growth?’, American Economic Review, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 409–14.

Paredes, R.R., ed. 1989. Philippine Colonial Democracy. Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila University Press.

Reyes, Miguel Paolo P. Rating Philippine Democratization: A Review of

Democratization Metrics. ASIAN DEMOCRACY REVIEW Vol. 1 (2012):
pp.182-198 Third World Studies Center, College of Social Sciences and
Philosophy, University of the Philippines-Diliman. ISSN 2244-5633.

Schumacher, Ernst.Friedrich. 1973. Small is Beautiful: A study of Economics as

if People Mattered. London: Vintage Books.

Teehankee, Julio.2002. Electoral Politics in the Philippines. Journal of Electoral

Politics in Southeast. And East Asia. Singapore: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

Watts, R.L.1999. Comparing Federal Systems. 2nd ed. Montreal & Kingston:
McGill-Queen’s University Press.

View publication stats