- Joined
- Oct 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,780
- Points
- 38
why philippine is a democratic country but still so corrupted?good video here...?let's debate guys!!!
take from one source...!
Filipino Democracy
Various terms have been bandied about to describe Filipino democracy - élitist, oligarchic, illiberal, authoritarian, anarchic, chaotic, and wide-open come to mind. I believe I myself have referred to it as "vibrant" (although that begs the question of which way the thing vibrates and how many fragile institutions are jeopardized in the process of vibration).
The Republic of the Philippines is a weak postcolonial state. The public sector is basically subservient to the dominant social classes and deeply entrenched special interests. The reasons can be traced back to the historical evolution of the political system and modes of governance.
Both Spain and America created bureaucracies based on their own models. Indeed, the Philippine state owes little to indigenous Filipino norms or culture - the whole apparatus was externally imposed.
Part of the problem was that Uncle Sam was conflicted about the unaccustomed role of colonialist power. Lacking the long history of colonial rule of the Spanish or British, the Americans were never quite comfortable as authoritarian rulers, and never solved the dilemma of how to "save the little brown brothers" while still protecting their strategic interests in Asia.
The American administration imposed colonial-style rule (albeit with a Filipino-staffed bureaucracy) while simultaneously encouraging grassroots democracy. They introduced local elections in 1901, only three years after taking over, then legislative elections in 1907, and eventually presidential elections in 1935.
From the beginning, the domestic political process was dominated by powerful clans in the provinces. They have been referred to as caciques, a term originally used in Spain and Latin America, but equally applicable in the Hispanic-influenced Philippines. Michael Cullinane refers to the resultant system as "colonial democracy". Early on, provincial aristocrats like Manuel Quezon and Sergio Osmeña, Sr. extended their power, with local patronage politics gradually seeping up to the national level legislature and the President's cabinet. Tip O'Neill, the former US House Speaker, used to say that "all politics is local". This has always been the case in the Philippines.
Political participation in the Philippines was never based on a democratic model. Given the long history of patron-client relationships, the provincial caciques held tremendous clout based on their ability to deliver votes. Complex and labor-intensive political machines soon evolved. The élite bosses knew how to mobilize opinion leaders, poll watchers, and enforcers; their power was unquestioned within their own spheres of influence. As one scholar of the Mafia put it, the bigger and stronger the reputation, the less need to deploy the resources that led to that reputation in the first place. From the time of the first national elections in 1935, Presidential candidates were beholden to various bosses in the countryside, for without them they could not be elected to office.
From the beginning, electoral competition did not revolve around class differences. Instead, politics was a game played within the élite classes, who manipulated and controlled the political process. They were a homogeneous group, and there were few substantive differences in politics or political philosophy. Everybody was a conservative. One consequence was that the political and electoral process was based more on personality than on substance.
http://www.apmforum.com/columns/orientseas22.htm
[video=youtube;NVWKhR7CUsw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=NVWKhR7CUsw[/video]
take from one source...!
Filipino Democracy
Various terms have been bandied about to describe Filipino democracy - élitist, oligarchic, illiberal, authoritarian, anarchic, chaotic, and wide-open come to mind. I believe I myself have referred to it as "vibrant" (although that begs the question of which way the thing vibrates and how many fragile institutions are jeopardized in the process of vibration).
The Republic of the Philippines is a weak postcolonial state. The public sector is basically subservient to the dominant social classes and deeply entrenched special interests. The reasons can be traced back to the historical evolution of the political system and modes of governance.
Both Spain and America created bureaucracies based on their own models. Indeed, the Philippine state owes little to indigenous Filipino norms or culture - the whole apparatus was externally imposed.
Part of the problem was that Uncle Sam was conflicted about the unaccustomed role of colonialist power. Lacking the long history of colonial rule of the Spanish or British, the Americans were never quite comfortable as authoritarian rulers, and never solved the dilemma of how to "save the little brown brothers" while still protecting their strategic interests in Asia.
The American administration imposed colonial-style rule (albeit with a Filipino-staffed bureaucracy) while simultaneously encouraging grassroots democracy. They introduced local elections in 1901, only three years after taking over, then legislative elections in 1907, and eventually presidential elections in 1935.
From the beginning, the domestic political process was dominated by powerful clans in the provinces. They have been referred to as caciques, a term originally used in Spain and Latin America, but equally applicable in the Hispanic-influenced Philippines. Michael Cullinane refers to the resultant system as "colonial democracy". Early on, provincial aristocrats like Manuel Quezon and Sergio Osmeña, Sr. extended their power, with local patronage politics gradually seeping up to the national level legislature and the President's cabinet. Tip O'Neill, the former US House Speaker, used to say that "all politics is local". This has always been the case in the Philippines.
Political participation in the Philippines was never based on a democratic model. Given the long history of patron-client relationships, the provincial caciques held tremendous clout based on their ability to deliver votes. Complex and labor-intensive political machines soon evolved. The élite bosses knew how to mobilize opinion leaders, poll watchers, and enforcers; their power was unquestioned within their own spheres of influence. As one scholar of the Mafia put it, the bigger and stronger the reputation, the less need to deploy the resources that led to that reputation in the first place. From the time of the first national elections in 1935, Presidential candidates were beholden to various bosses in the countryside, for without them they could not be elected to office.
From the beginning, electoral competition did not revolve around class differences. Instead, politics was a game played within the élite classes, who manipulated and controlled the political process. They were a homogeneous group, and there were few substantive differences in politics or political philosophy. Everybody was a conservative. One consequence was that the political and electoral process was based more on personality than on substance.
http://www.apmforum.com/columns/orientseas22.htm
[video=youtube;NVWKhR7CUsw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=NVWKhR7CUsw[/video]
Last edited:
