AS we edge ever closer to the filing of certificates of candidacy for the 2016 national and local elections, I cannot help but ruminate on the distractingly low numbers of new and unheard of family names being floated about for the electorate’s consideration.
It is not something we can deny. Filipino voters do sometimes base their electoral choices on family names, rather than on any other, more significant, criteria. This is true for national elections—where, perhaps, it is tempting to blame the “family name bias” on the fact that voters know precious little about the national level candidates foisted on them by political parties—as much as it is true for local elections—where it demolishes the thesis that a lack of information about candidates predisposes to the family name bias.
A while back, confronted with the dynasty question, a political celebrity said—and I paraphrase—that it is only the intellectual A and B classes, in Manila, who have a problem with dynasts; that it isn’t even an issue for nearly everyone else (presumably referring to the less intellectual C and D classes, whatever that might be); and that some people associate certain family names with good service.
Said with enough aplomb and confidence, these rationalizations are powerfully seductive in their seeming reasonableness. After all, it is an accepted fact that people in the capital are normally oppositionist—obviously because the capital is where the national media can be found, and oppositionists and the media do tend to develop a kind of symbiotic relationship—and that the capitals of nations are normally where the intellectuals can be found in the greatest densities. It follows, it would seem, that high-level arguments about democratic principles would be most discussed in the capital.
Flowing from this premise is also reasonable sounding conclusion that those outside the capital are less concerned about high-flown democratic principles and are more preoccupied with practical considerations. Maslow’s heirarchy and all that.
And, of course, like brands, surnames do eventually build up goodwill leading people to make sweeping generalizations about the sons and daughters bearing those surnames. I would, for instance, probably trust a Kennedy more than I would trust a Smith.
But as reasonable as all these arguments seem to be, they are not.
First of all, it is not the intellectual snobs in Manila that have a problem with dynasties. It is the Constitution. Article II, Section 26 of that threadbare document states: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
The legislative machinery may have dawdled in the task of bringing that provision to life, but that delay does not erase the fact that the prohibition of political dynasties is one of the foundations of this government. It is an idea that the people ratified, and aren’t the people the source of all government authority?
Second, it is ,therefore, very wrong to presume that dynasties are not a problem for anyone else, just as it is misleading to say that dynasties are not an issue for those who are preoccupied with the complicated business of living. Nor should this preoccupation be considered a license to ignore the clear intent of the people speaking through the Constitution. Otherwise, we would be faced with an interesting state of affairs where people know that the constitution explicitly calls for the prohibition of a particular practice, but nevertheless take advantage of the absence of an actual law.
With regard to the argument that surnames are brands, while it is true that some surnames do enjoy a great deal of credibility, this does not mean that they have a monopoly on what it takes to govern and to legislate. This is where the conceit of dynasts is exposed: a surname is not necessarily a guarantee.
Despite the appeals to one’s family history of service, despite the repeated references to how much one’s family is loved, despite the apparently welcoming attitude toward competition, the truth of the matter is that dynasts enter the electoral race with clear advantages arising from their entrenchment—money, for instance, and “machinery.”
That’s why dynasties were sought to be prohibited by the Constitution, I think. Not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with elected officials being related to each other, but because it predisposes to conditions that make it practically impossible—even in the absence of fraud or tyranny—for people to choose anyone else.
No better reason exists, to challenge dynasts.
****
The period for filing of certificates of candidacy (COC) for the 2016 national, local and Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao elections starts on the 12th of October 12 and runs until the 16th. Voter registration and validation will be suspended for the duration of the COC filing period.