“Democracy in the Philippines: The Influential government of the local elites and continuous impingement to good governance in towns and provinces”

                The interference of local elites into performing good governance in the Philippine political system has been tolerated, and has recognition by these political animals in practicing informal political norms. The Philippines local elites are the main practitioner of political tradition and customs such as political bosses, patron-client relations, political clans, etc., so that the birth of informal institution comes. It has a huge effect on delivering good governance to the local level; formal institutions are being dominated by informal institutions. Democracy is somehow ineffective to the Philippine context, because of the traditions we cannot live without. Basically this essay focuses on the impact of giving such autonomy to the local levels, and the interference of local elite to the formal institutions by the informal institutions. The decentralization vested by the Local Government Code of 1991 has performed a big role on the evolution of governing in the local levels. The article of Abueva is a formal institution and the articles of Magno, Manasca and Sidel are the informal institutions that are more express on the local level. The elites is impingement for delivering good governance because they are the one who can only avail to participate in any elections, they are more likely a capitalist, they use the power vested on them to make more profits. The rich became richer and the poor became poorer, if you have money you can manipulate the authority, and if you are the authority you can generate money by means of goons.

                “Decentralization of government functions serves as an invitation for rampant practice of informal institution by the local elites and the acceptance of the public of it in exchange of temporary privileges”. 

                The article of Abueva is somehow an invitation of the rise of the local elites and the toleration of informal political norms. The proposal of Abueva is to decentralize the present centralize government of the Philippines (Avueva, Jose) but this proposal may invites or may allow to legalize different privileges of a political elite. The ampatuan’s of the Mindanao is the best illustration of this, they able to create a private army that will follow the command of its boss. As I see, these are happening to our present political system and we must entertain at least a remedy not a thing that will worsen out political status. The patronage politics is rampantly express on the local levels (Magno 1989), therefore it an justification that it is not efficient for the Philippine political system the decentralization of national functions down to the local level.

                Some political individuals uses their resources in able to achieve the trust of the public by rendering different good or privileges, and in exchange the public are obligated to vote for that politician. It is the concept of patron-client relation, patron serves as a provider and public serves the client and mutual relation is built among the two. This is the reality of the Philippine political system; these informalities are inevitable when there is poverty. Local levels are experiencing it in the Philippine context, the public cannot avoid it because if we avoided it because we are alarmed when someone interfere with our traditions and customs.

                The political elites are too powerful in their localities; imagine if federalization will be passed. Federalization is decentralization and giving autonomy to exercise authority with accordance with the political body of the local government. Local elites will be attracted to form an alliance for a strong political coalition, for them to be able to secure the resources of the local government in to their hands. Primarily political elite wants to gain power in order to maximize their profit and resources. A political boss will arise who can able to control the political machine in order to prolong their tenure. Vesting an absolute authority on the local level will only fortify the practice of informal institution. At some point the decentralization has a negative effect on performing public services, like for example: the abuse of authority and more prone to corruption.

                As Abueva proposed, with the form of the Philippine’s government to be federalist-parliamentary. Our present party system is multi-party, so therefore it is a chaotic process in choosing our prime-minister, and if it will be amended into two party systems, probably it will be more chaotic. In two party systems, only two super parties will be an area to pick the prime minister. The political parties are temporary vehicle for local elites to penetrate in holding a political power (Manasca& Tan 2007), so that the party loses its real advocacy. Political party is primarily built in marginalize sector, and it is also an indication of political patronage. Political parties are introduce by ex-Pres. Ferdinand Marcos to represents different ideology and group of ethnical or not peoples. It is abuse by some aspiring individuals to enter politics or to achieve their political dreams.

                Informal institution will continue to interfere with our formal institutions and as the level of the Philippine political maturity, there are no perfect solution eliminating the rise or domination of political elite in attaining political power. As the Philippine systems recognize and accept these informalities in political system, the political boss, patron-client relation and manufacturing parties to use as a temporary vehicle will be used by local elites to prolong and maintain their political power.

                In the Philippine context, the elites or the rich can only avail to participate in any local elections. When they attain power they will do everything to maintain it on their hand and the practice of informal institutions arises. These are the reasons why the local elites are the major factor to impinge the practice of good governance in the local level. Many of our marginalized towns and provinces are the targets of these political animals; man in nature is political animal (Aristotle). Instead of criticizing the interference of local elites in delivering good governance, we must focus on how we can formulate a system that will fit our traditions and customs.

                The proposal of Abueva has advantages but it cannot resolve our grievances especially the domination of local elites in the local governments. Instead of putting our country into federalism, we must know what localities can survive the shift. First convert those charter cities into federal, they can withstand the autonomy and everything follows. Those in 3^rd class municipalities can be merged with a lot develop municipality or charter city near its vicinity and those more develop localities will take charge on governing the 3^rd class municipalities. This theory will eliminates inequality in development unlike Abueva and Pimentel’s proposals. This may also disjoin the participation of local elites on the 3^rd class municipalities by the control of the more powerful force by the charter cities.

                Philippine has a lot of problem when it comes to forgery of rigid implementation of policies and laws. We are political immature, we are rather to work for ourselves that to take apart on these political matters even though we have enough rights to resist the practice of informal institutions. If we will keep this ignorance, the elites will take advantage to the extent of their satisfaction. Because of the public’s toleration of informal institutions, the cacique or elites will domain the use of authority and can manipulate us in some way. If only we can once again unite our patriotism, there are no impossible for the Philippine.

                The inter action of different classes must be existing in a democratic form of government, the freedom must be present. Election is an indicator of democracy, isn’t it? In past elections, I have witnessed on how the public accept the practice of informal institutions. A politicians propaganda, vote-buying, promises and electoral fraud, this is a manifestation that we are also a part of informal institutions. Is democracy really fitted on our traditions and customs? Or we are just a trying hard nation who thinks that democracy is for us. It is shame that my own race don’t understand the essence of democracy. At some point, democracy is the reason of worsening our political tradition. We are given a lot of freedom so that abuses occur, the capitalist abuse the rights of the consumers to gain more profits and then they will use that profit to facilitate their electoral fraud. I have observed that the election invite the toleration of giving the local elites to interfere with our formal rules and in result lack of good governance. People only aspire to have a good government that shall lead them to success, and since change is the only absolute in politics, they are taking the chance to change a form of government for a lot better life to live. Democracy may perish in the Philippine but it does not solve the problem of all, besides there is no form of government for the benefit of all because politics is basically to display power and not for the weak. There are no forms or structure of government that will satisfy the hunger of the masses.

                The practice of informal institution is truly inevitable, as long as we are lock up with our traditions and customs. The lack of rigid in implementation, it is more essential that our state is separate with the church and the church must not affect the decision making of the state. We are back to the Spaniards time that the church is too powerful in government functions. The aspiration of every citizen of our country to have a practice of good governance is being hindered by the negative culture of the Philippine politics. As long as we tolerate this acts our political system will not develop instead it will fall and the democracy we fought for and the sacrifices that our people done will be forgotten and put into trash. Our people will never learn from our history and will always take for granted all the good things that we have.

                The local elites have the charisma; they can lure anyone with their flamboyant speeches. The ruler on a certain local government can manipulate the whole population by knowledge on how to play the game of politics. Many of the Philippine’s towns and provinces are marginalized, and so the local elites use their wealth as an advantage. Primarily local people developments are base on the local elites, the land is provided by the elites and the peasants are the one who make the land fertile and profitable but the elites get the most of the profit and benefits. Because of the lacking opportunity the peasant engaged to a patron-client relation with the higher class. Greed is the major factor on the interference of the local elite in performing good governance. Local elite can antagonize policies and laws in the local levels by using their influence and wealth.

Conclusion:

                Informal institutions are rampantly express on the Philippine setting and it is unavoidable. Our traditions and customs will always interfere with our formal structures; unless scholars can develop a political structure that is fitted to the Philippine’s setting. Proposing different structure to shift our government into different form won’t make a change, like the proposal of Abueva to federalize the Philippines. It will just invite the acceptance of informal institutions, and will worsen the corruption among all localities. The Philippine must attain its maturity in politics in able to develop other internal matters, and surely it will take a lot of time attaining it.

                The interference of local elites is inevitable, as the Philippines political setting. Philippine is too much entertained with our traditions and customs; we are tremulous that the occurrence of changes will disregarded the major component of our nationality or maybe individuality. We are pent in the past and we can’t entertain new innovations that may help our development in the local levels up to the national levels.

                Democracy is not quite effective in the Philippines context because it is primarily the idea of the westerns, and it was created for the development of the westerners. Democracy led us to the rampant practice of informal institutions and the recognition of it among the people and the nation. We are given too much of freedom that’s why we cannot avoid the manipulation of the elites on the local levels. It is well explained by the three authors that the informal institutions are more express on the local level, because local elites are also the political rulers in the local level. How can they be punished when they are the one implementing the law? The decentralization of political or governmental function down to the local government gives opportunity for some political ruler to formulate a law that will benefit his/her and his constituents. There is nothing wrong with our political structure; the only thing that makes the structure wrong is on how Filipinos collaborate our tradition in running a political sector. It is inevitable and it will continue to impinge in delivering good governance with a rapid change, we must wait or take time on our development in socially, economically and politically.