Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CHANGELESS
LAND
Continuity and Change in
Philippine Politics
The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) was established as an
autonomous organization in 1968. It is a regional research centre for scholars
and other specialists concerned with modern Southeast Asia, particularly
the many-faceted problems of stability and security, economic development,
and political and social change.
The Institute is governed by a twenty-two-member Board of 'ftustees com-
prising nominees from the Singapore Government, the National University
of Singapore, the various Chambers of Commerce, and professional and civic
organizations. A ten-man Executive Committee oversees day-to-day operations;
it is chaired by the Director, the Institute's chief academic and administrative
officer.
A
CHANGELESS
LAND
Continuity and Change in
Philippine Politics
DAVID G. TIMBERMAN
~l Routledge
~~ Taylor & Francis Group
LONDON AND NEW YORK
First published 1991 by M.E. Sharpe
Notices
No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to
persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise,
or from any use of operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas
contained in the material herein.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and
knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or
experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should
be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for
whom they have a professional responsibility.
Acknowledgements ix
Bibliography 401
Index 422
Acknowledgements
ix
X Acknowledgements
xi
xii introduction
last twenty-five years suggest that there have been important changes
in Philippine politics and society. The declaration of martial law by
Ferdinand Marcos in 1972 was a dramatic break with the post-war
democratic tradition. Moreover, Marcos claimed his authoritarian
regime was carrying out a "revolution from the center" in order to
create a "new society". The toppling of Marcos in February 1986
has come to be known as a "people power revolution". The resulting
restoration of democracy by Corazon Aquino, though not revolutionary,
was a significant (and welcomed) change after almost fourteen years
of dictatorship. More recently, the nearly successful military coup
attempts in August 1987 and December 1989 were the bloody indi-
cators of another important change, namely, the increased role of
the military in politics.
Accompanying and perhaps underlying these changes, however,
is considerable "changelessness". There is a sad constancy to the
poverty, inequity, and injustice that characterize Philippine society,
particularly in the countryside. There is a long history of society,
politics and economic affairs being dominated by a relatively small
and surprisingly durable group of conservative families. Consequently,
there is also a history of successive governments - both democratic
and authoritarian - being unwilling or unable to enact much needed
socio-economic reforms such as land reform. There is a timeless-
ness to the highly personalistic nature of politics as well as to the
rituals and rhetoric of political discourse. There is a predictable
repetitiveness to the charges of election fraud, corruption, nepotism,
and incompetence. And there are recurring debates over what it
means to be a Filipino, the appropriate role of the government in
the economy, and the Philippines' complex "love-hate" relationship
with the United States.
This mixture of continuity and change raises several important
questions. First, how could a nation that has gone through so many
changes actually have changed so little? Second, why has the long-
standing poverty and injustice of Philippine society not caused more
change, and more radical or violent change? Third, is the Philip-
pines' apparent resistance to change a source of political stability or
instability? And finally, does a mechanism exist to enable peaceful
and positive change in the future?
These questions are of more than just intellectual interest for at
Continuity and Change in a "Changeless" Land xiii
hold a free and fair election in 1986; or most recently, when the U.S.
air force intervened to help quell the December 1989 coup attempt.
On the whole, however, I do not believe that the U.S. Government
has a sustained or decisive influence on most of the political and
governmental processes described in this book. Put another way, I
believe Filipinos - and not Americans - are the ultimate determiners
of their nation's political destiny.
Finally, this book is a personal effort to understand and explain
a sometimes frustrating, often paradoxical, and always fascinating
country. Like many other foreigners who have lived there, I have
been simultaneously impressed and distressed by Philippine society.
I have been impressed by the hospitality and generosity, the patience
and perseverance, and the intelligence and humour of Filipinos. But
at the same time, I have been distressed by the predominance of
self-interest, the inequity and injustice, and the lack of unity and
consensus in Philippine society. This book, therefore, is my own
effort to understand, and where possible reconcile, some of these
apparent contradictions.
Over the years, more than a few American observers of Philippine
affairs have been guilty of judging the Philippines by American stand-
ards. I have tried to avoid perpetuating this tradition by drawing
extensively on Filipino commentary and analysis. Moreover, when
criticizing certain shortcomings and failures of Philippine politics,
I have tried to use the standards and criteria I have heard Filipinos
use. And when assessing the challenges facing the Philippines, I
have tried to view these in the context of the national goals and
aspirations articulated by many Filipinos. But in the final analysis,
I am what I am - an American commenting on another culture
and society. I hope the Filipinos who read this will accept that my
observations are based on a genuine interest in and concern for
their country.
"
South
China
Sea
Sulu
Sea
Celebes Sea
PART ONE
Traditional Philippine Politics
Page Intentionally Left Blank
chapter 1
3
4 chapter I
Pakikisama
Loosely translated, pakikisama means "to please the group". It is
a behavioural norm that stresses the importance of smooth inter-
personal relations or, in other words, "going along to get along".
Pakikisama places value on being polite, respectful, accommodating,
and non-confrontational. Someone who is rude, disrespectful or openly
confrontational is considered to be walang hiya.
Values that discourage confrontation and encourage smooth social
interaction are necessary in a heterogeneous society like the Philippines.
But the effect of pakikisama can also be to emphasize "social process
over social product". That is, the importance placed on maintaining
smooth interpersonal relations can make it socially unacceptable to
be straight-forward or to make controversial statements or decisions.
Consequently, it can result in a tendency to paper over, rather than
20 chapter 1
A Culture of Poverty
Filipino historian Resil Mojares has suggested that Philippine political
culture is a "culture of poverty". According to him, pervasive poverty
causes a culture that occasions an immediate - instead of future -
orientation, an interest in short-term gains and benefits for oneself,
one's family or group, rather than one's class or nation. 27
At first glance, the Philippines does not seem to be a country in
need. The countryside appears lush, verdant, and idyllic, and parts
of it are. But it also suffers from serious environmental degradation.
It is battered by up to twenty typhoons per year, flooded by heavy
Philippine Society and Political Culture 21
The political left has claimed that this sharply bifurcated class
system is a feudal or semi-feudal one in which the poor majority of
Filipinos has been exploited and oppressed by a small but powerful
minority. The upper class has indeed controlled wealth and power
in the Philippines, more often than not to the detriment of the poor
majority. It is also true, however, that Philippine class relationships
are considerably more complex and ambiguous than Marxist analysis
suggests. This is because of the mutual obligations of traditional
patron-client relationships, the bonds of ritual kinship, regional and
linguistic ties, and (at least until recently) the "other worldliness" of
the Church's teachings. As Carl Lande observed: "Filipinos see little
need for collective action among members of their own class, especially
if such action threatens to alienate dyadic partners. As a result, most
Filipinos take little interest in class or interest group legislation." 33
In short, the personal and very tangible ties between a poor farmer
and his landlord or between a poor worker and a government official
who could provide him with a job have taken precedence over a sense
of class solidarity.
There is some reason to believe, however, that the bonds of patron-
client relationships are weakening. Benedict Kerkvliet has described
how traditional patron-client relationships broke down in rural Central
Luzon in the 1950s as a result of the modernization, monetarization,
and mechanization of agriculture. 34 In the late 1960s the class con-
sciousness of some Filipinos was raised when, in the wake of the
Second Vatican Council of 1962-65, the Philippine Catholic Church
devoted itself to exercising a "preferential option for the poor". This
was coincident with both the growth of a fledgling middle-class in
Metro Manila and the spread of Marxist analysis in intellectual circles.
During the early 1970s Ferdinand Marcos used populist rhetoric to
gain support for his regime and undermine the traditional "oligarchs".
To this list of new influences on class identification must be added
the effect of more than a decade of communist proselytizing, educa-
tion, and organizing. Fifteen years ago, most affluent residents of
Manila were likely to dismiss the attraction and viability of communism
in the Philippines. According to journalist William Chapman, "The
Manila elite used to think there was something un-Filipino about the
ideology of class struggle and a war on imperialism. These were
foolish, alien concepts much too serious for the Filipino mentality,
Philippine Society and Political Culture 25