by Alan S. Cajes
Power, Culture, and the Crisis of Representation
The entanglement of media and political dynasties in the Philippines is more than a matter of influence; it is a structural reality deeply embedded in the country's historical trajectory, cultural logics, and socio-political architecture. This convergence operates not simply through coercion or corruption but through the normalization of elite rule, the reproduction of patron-client relationships, and the orchestration of symbolic narratives.
Philippine polity inherited precolonial kinship-based governance, Spanish patronage structures, and American electoral tutelage—resulting in a hybrid political order where family-based power is both traditional and modern. It resonates with Filipino relational values such as utang na loob and pakikisama, reinforcing loyalty over ideology. However, it raises questions about truth, legitimacy, and the meaning of democratic representation.
Precolonial Power as Sacred Kinship
Before colonization, Filipino societies were governed by datus—local chieftains whose authority was grounded in kinship, warrior reputation, and ritual sanction. Leadership was relational and performative, rooted in a moral economy of reciprocity and embedded in the communal cosmology. The datu functioned as protector, priest, and provider, earning loyalty through visible acts of generosity and spiritual mediation. Genealogy conferred legitimacy, and authority was sacralized through myths of divine ancestry and ritual leadership.
This configuration of power—what anthropologists term a segmentary lineage system—continues to echo in contemporary Philippine politics. The symbolic role of the datu lives on in the modern mayor, governor, or senator who rules through personalism, charisma, and relational closeness rather than programmatic platforms.
Colonial Reinvention of Elites
The Spanish colonial state co-opted local leaders into the principalia, formalizing their authority as colonial middlemen. These native elites collected taxes, enforced conversion, and governed local populations on behalf of the Crown. Their power was reinforced by land grants, exemptions from tribute, and access to Western education. Thus began a fusion of indigenous authority with colonial patronage—an arrangement that institutionalized elite rule through hybrid forms of governance.
The American regime further restructured this system by introducing elections, public education, and legal institutions, but participation was limited to property-owning males—most of whom were already part of the ilustrado or landed elite. Elections became another avenue for elite reproduction. Political families emerged not despite colonial reforms, but because of them.
American Period and Electoral Capture
While promoting democracy in rhetoric, the American colonial regime ensured that political power remained with compliant elites. Electoral institutions were designed to showcase republican forms without altering colonial substance. Voting rights were restricted (for example, the Jones Law of 1916 included a provision under the Qualifications of Voters -- “Those who own real property to the value of 500 pesos, or who annually pay 30 pesos or more of the established taxes.”; political parties were clan-based; and public service was framed as privilege, not duty. The system facilitated the conversion of economic capital into political control, entrenching families who had gained prominence under Spanish rule.
Rather than undermine oligarchy, American reforms modernized it. Patron-client networks were embedded into democratic institutions. Local caciques brokered development funds and appointments in exchange for votes. Political authority became an inherited asset, transmitted through generations and legitimized through media visibility, academic credentials, and performance of care.
Post-Independence and the Reinvention of Dynastic Power
The transition to independence in 1946 did not disrupt elite rule; it deepened it. Prominent families captured the new institutions of statehood, portraying themselves as nationalist saviors while maintaining structural inequalities. The political arena became a space where families competed for dominance, often marrying into one another to consolidate power. The dominant political families represent not isolated cases, but an entrenched system, especially under Martial Law when centralized dynastic rule was elevated to imperial scale through crony capitalism, media propaganda, and cultural programming. The post-EDSA period restored electoral democracy, but failed to dismantle dynastic structures. Today, over 70% of Congress belongs to political families. Elections remain a form of elite circulation masked as popular choice.
Patronage, Kinship, and Moral Economies
Political loyalty in the Philippines is governed not only by law or ideology but by moral and relational codes. Utang na loob (debt of gratitude) and pakikisama (harmonious relations) create powerful incentives to support leaders who offer tangible aid, attend community rituals, and fulfill symbolic roles. Politicians are seen not just as public officials, but as familial figures—Ina ng Bayan, Ama ng Lalawigan, Anak ng Masa—who must be reciprocated with loyalty.
This moral economy legitimizes patronage. Acts of
giving—be they sacks of rice, funeral expenses, or scholarship grants—are
ritual affirmations of care. These practices foster emotional bonds and moral
obligations, making political opposition appear as betrayal. Leadership is less
about policy than proximity, less about ideology than intimacy.
Media as Mediator of Dynastic Power: From Visibility to Myth
Media does not merely cover political dynasties—it constructs them. From colonial newspapers to social media, the media ecosystem has helped political families transform themselves into cultural icons. Today, descendants of political families leverage YouTube, TikTok, and Facebook to brand or rebrand their image.
This shift from journalism to mythopoesis reflects philosopher Guy Debord’s society of the spectacle, where power is exercised through images and emotion rather than through reason. Media visibility becomes symbolic capital. Political campaigns mimic television dramas, and public memory becomes a battleground of aesthetics, emotion, and viral content. When the media is captured, truth becomes optional, and myth becomes political currency.
Symbolic Power and the Cultural Logic of Consent
Gramsci’s concept of hegemony helps explain why dynasties persist: not because people are forced, but because they consent—often unwittingly—to their rule. This consent is built through rituals, narratives, and affective ties that normalize elite power.
Bourdieu adds that dynasties convert various forms of capital—economic, social, cultural, and symbolic—into enduring advantage. Political families use wealth to fund campaigns, fame to court media, education to signal competence, and history to invoke legacy. Through habitus, citizens internalize these norms, making dynastic politics seem inevitable or even desirable.
The ultimate result is symbolic violence: the misrecognition of domination as legitimacy. When the public prefers name recall over platforms, when elections are won through spectacle rather than deliberation, democracy becomes ritualized compliance rather than participatory agency.
Postcolonial Memory and the Battle for Historical Truth
Digital disinformation capitalizes on postcolonial amnesia—an effect of fragmented education, English-centric historiography, and a state that has failed to institutionalize memory. Yet resistance persists: #NeverAgain campaigns, independent documentaries, digital archives, and survivor testimonies all fight to preserve the moral imagination of democracy.
What Happened to Political Parties?
In a healthy democracy, political parties are supposed to help voters make good choices. They’re expected to screen candidates, explain clear plans and beliefs, and support leaders who are capable and honest. But in the Philippines, political parties are weak. Instead of standing for ideas, many parties just follow personalities. Politicians jump from one party to another depending on what benefits them most—this is called turncoatism. Because parties don’t offer real guidance, voters often choose based on family name, popularity, or personal help received.
As a result, political dynasties have taken over the job
that parties should be doing. Instead of focusing on ideas or policies,
elections become popularity contests where powerful families almost always win.
Can New Leaders Win? The Hope for Alternative Politicians
While dynasties still dominate, there have been moments when alternative leaders—those outside big political families—have broken through. These politicians often come from civil society, the youth sector, labor unions, or local communities. Some are teachers, lawyers, or activists who built trust through community work instead of fame or fortune. They usually win when people are tired of old names and are hungry for honest, competent leadership. Social media and local organizing have helped some of them connect with voters directly, even without huge budgets. Their victories show that change is possible.
But it’s not easy to sustain. Without strong political parties to support them or enough funding, many face pressure to join traditional alliances just to survive. Some get co-opted into the system; others are sidelined after one term. This is why deeper reform is needed—not just to elect new leaders, but to protect them and help them grow.
The key to sustaining alternative leadership is
consistent support from citizens, better access to campaign resources, fair
media coverage, and civic education that values new ideas over big names.
Toward Cultural and Institutional Reform
Genuine reform requires both structural change and cultural transformation. Institutional reforms include:
·
Enacting an anti-dynasty law with teeth.
·
Reforming campaign finance laws.
·
Democratizing media ownership.
·
Supporting civic education and media literacy.
Culturally, reform demands rethinking values: elevating
merit over name, public interest over kinship, and civic participation over
passive consumption. Education must cultivate critical thinking, historical
consciousness, and democratic ethics.
Grassroots movements, youth activism, independent media, and local innovation represent sites of democratic renewal. These movements embody what Enrique Dussel calls transmodern politics: grounded in the ethics of liberation, they resist hegemonic structures while prefiguring alternative futures.
Reclaiming Democratic Imagination
The nexus of media and dynastic power in the Philippines is not an anomaly—it is a product of history, culture, and systemic design. But it is not unchangeable. By confronting this nexus holistically, we gain not only diagnosis but also insight into paths forward.
Democracy is not just about elections. It is about voice, memory, inclusion, and imagination. To break the hold of dynasties and reclaim democracy, Filipinos must not only reform institutions but transform consciousness. Only then can democracy move from ritual to reality.
References
Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power.
Harvard University Press, 1991.
Cannell, Fenella. Power and Intimacy in the Christian
Philippines. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. Zone
Books, 1994.
Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the
Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press, 2007.
Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Journal
of Peace Research 6, no. 3 (1969): 167–191.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures.
Basic Books, 1973.
Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks.
International Publishers, 1971.
Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the
Public Sphere. MIT Press, 1989.
Hollnsteiner, Mary R. “Reciprocity in the Lowland
Philippines.” Filipinas Journal of Anthropology 1, no. 1 (1965): 1–16.
Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger, eds. The Invention
of Tradition. Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Mignolo, Walter D. The Darker Side of Western
Modernity. Duke University Press, 2011.
Ricoeur, Paul. Memory, History, Forgetting.
University of Chicago Press, 2004.
Scott, James C. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of
Peasant Resistance. Yale University Press, 1985.
Scott, William Henry. Barangay: Sixteenth-Century
Philippine Culture and Society. Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1994.
Walzer, Michael. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of
Pluralism and Equality. Basic Books, 1983.
Young, Iris Marion. Inclusion and Democracy.
Oxford University Press, 2000.
Wolfe, Eric. Europe and the People Without History.
University of California Press, 1982.
No comments:
Post a Comment