Is the Philippines a Democratic Country?

- In the Philippines, the President is both a civilian & military officer. ... By its evidences, we can
conclude that the Philippines is a country under a democraticform of government.

What kind of Democracy is the Philippines?

The Philippines has a democratic republic with a presidential form of government with 3
branches namely: executive, legislative and judicial.Jul 19, 2016

WHAT IS THE POLITICAL SYSTEM IN THE

PHILIPPINE?
The Philippines political system takes place in an organized structure of apresidential,
representative, and democratic republic wherein the president is both the head of government
and the head of state within a multi-party system.

The most democratic countries of the world according to

the 2015 Democracy Index:
1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Sweden
4. New Zealand
5. Denmark
6. Switzerland
7. Canada
8. Finland
9. Australia
10. Netherlands
11. Luxembourg
12. Ireland
13. Germany
14. Austria
15. Malta
16. UK
17. Spain
18. Mauritius
19. Uruguay
20. USA
WHAT DOES DEMOCRACY MEAN TO YOU?
June 12, 2015

For many of us, the notion of “democracy” is buried in school textbooks or is something that only
happens once a year when we vote. We don’t often realize that we can change the status quo – we
can define for ourselves what democracy means for us. We can have a role in influencing decisions
that affect us on a regular basis – not just when we vote.

People across the country are coming together to share their ideas and opinions with others and to
work together to create better communities on a wide range of issues such as education, food
security, racial equity, community-police relations, and building prosperity. We asked people
working towards change in several communities what democracy means to them, and this is what
they said:

Equality, Stopping the Violence, Power and possibility, Transparency, Everyone has the power to
create change, Accept me for who I am, Freedom to be me, Government, Participation... being able
to disagree,

For me: “Democracy is a journey. Sometimes the road is smooth, sometimes

rough, but each step brings up closer to the ideal. We’re on the path, but not
there yet.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jake, 22, laughed when I asked him who he voted for in the local elections for mayor. He said he
abstained, but he went to the house of the mayor and received money just the same. “Why not? It was
free, everyone was going there,” he reasoned.

The mayor was reelected and his local family dynasty, linked to a bigger family dynasty, became more
influential. His father had been mayor several times and then he became a congressman. The families of
the elites are connected by marriage and political allegiance. Family dynasties have, in reality, replaced
political parties; the children of politicians usually succeed their parents. In Philippine democracy,
allegiances change with the shift in political power.

That’s how it is in the Philippines. Votes are bought and the candidates with the most money will retain
power. They use that power to perpetuate their reign through their relatives. Dynasties rule through the
so-called democratic process. The system is flawed, what remains of the democratic process is under
threat from it’s own inherent weakness.

The top family dynasties are immensely wealthy. In the Philippines, there are eight leading billionaires. It
is estimated that one percent of the population are super rich and control 70 percent of the economy and
wealth. There are ten million Filipinos in poverty, and 5.3 million mired in extreme poverty. Many of them
will sell their “democratic” vote to the highest bidder. Political power is essential for the dynasties to
survive. The constitution demands an end to dynastic families but no legislation has been passed banning
them.

The power of patronage is not new since the client-ruler system has dominated the Philippines since the
Spanish era. Then, the rich families pacified the submissive poor and hungry by handing them small
favors. The poor were so miserable they took what they could get. They were docile clients of the ruling
families. The Spanish saw that their ruling class owned the land and property and the poor worked it for
them. Eventually the poor rebelled and overthrew the Spanish elite but the properties were still controlled
by the remaining wealthy elite and passed down through the generations.

They ruled and reaped the riches and still do through their successors. They dominate the Philippine
congress, where most members are millionaires. They are there to promote and protect the business and
political interests of their dynastic backers. The poor and the middle class are excluded from the political
process, so many sell their vote. Surveys show that the average approval rating of Philippine democracy
is between 60 and 80 percent among Filipinos. In September 2017, the score was 86 percent.

Although the system of government is based on the US model, it is usually the president who gets
congress to support him by offering financial incentives to the congressional representatives and
senators. That’s the reality. Payouts win support.

his is the pork barrel system of doling out huge sums to the politicians to buy their support. The Supreme
Court has ruled that pork barrel payouts are illegal, but the system continues, one way or the other.

Filipinos are tolerant and forgiving, and they have learned to accept and live with reality. They accept the
age-old “golden rule” – rich families have the gold, and so they rule. The average Filipino does not have
any idea how the ruling class or the political oligarchy could be changed or even if it should be changed.
The ideal of real democracy — “for the people, by the people, with the people”– has never been really
present in the experience of the people. So-called democracy has been ‘by the rich, for the rich” with the
poor excluded.

The ordinary people have no independent ordinary person as an alternative political leader. They do not
have the money or power to buy enough votes. The recent elections typified these contending dynastic
family feuds. Five contenders backed by various financial vested interests fought for the presidency. They
divided the vote and dissipated the vote-buying power of the traditional dynasties. The people saw that it
was a chance to break away from the divided feuding traditional politicos and voted for a charismatic
newcomer, a mayor from Davao City. He was running as an anti-elitist strongman and he became a
celebrity.

Democracy today is challenged by congress as it tries to form a body to change the constitution and form
a federal system as the President wants. This would transfer greater power to the dynastic families ruling
in their area of influence. Many proposed changes are self-serving. Democracy, flawed as it is, will be all
the more be weakened if they get their way.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Origins of Democracy in the Philippines

When the United States colonised the Philippines in 1898 it planned to gradually grant self-determination
to the country as the principles of democracy were imbibed by the population. As education was not
widespread, the elite and the educated benefitted most from the system instituted by the US, which was
largely executed by officers of the US army. Filipinos worked in the American administration and quickly
came to value the concept of self-government. By 1917, when the US decided to institute its policy of
‘Filipinisation’ , the elite was ready to assume positions vacated by departing US military officers.
Between 1917 and 1935, when the Commonwealth came into existence, political parties were formed and
most of the population was educated into accepting the principles of democracy, which meant having a
ruling party and an opposition. In this respect, the Philippines was significantly different from many Asian
countries which gained independence a few years later. As Apter (1962:154) points out: these countries
did not generally accept an opposition as a normal feature of a democracy. The small elite who controlled
the political process realised that each party would have its turn in government. The Nacionalista and
Liberal parties, which differed little ideologically, dominated politics, and politicians switched parties to
gain office. But the democratic system that developed did not represent the majority of the population.

The Philippine Commonwealth was inaugurated in 1935 under a democratic constitution patterned after
the United States bicameral system. ‘The ideology of American ‘democracy’ which emphasised the
limitation of state power was very different from the philosophy of the French in Indo-China, the Dutch in
the Indies and the British in Malaya. It played into the hands of the elite to whom the Americans, always
ambivalent colonial rulers, proceeded to hand over political power as soon as possible’ (Overholt
1986:1136).

For most Filipinos, American-style democracy meant little more than elections every few years. Beyond
this, the colonial authorities made sure that only the candidates who represented colonial interests first
and last won. This practice did not die with colonialism. The ensuing political order, which persisted long
after independence, was one where a handful of families effectively and ruthlessly ruled a society riven by
inequality. It was democratic in form, borrowing as many American practices as it could, but autocratic in
practice (World Bank report cited in Chomsky 1991:237).

The first duty of the Commonwealth government was national security. President Manuel Quezon
procured the services of General Douglas MacArthur, who was about to retire as US Army Chief of Staff,
to establish the Philippine military. MacArthur and his US military advisory team used the Swiss army as a
model for the Philippine army. A military academy, patterned after the US military academy at West Point,
was designed in which officers were to be instructed in the techniques and skills of the military and taught
that the proper role of the military in a democracy was one of subservience to civilian government. In
practice, however, these ideals were not easily imparted to the new recruits, many of whom attained their
place at the academy through political patronage rather than merit (Selochan 1990:57). Courses at the
academy were oriented towards equipping cadets to maintain internal law and order through combat
techniques. The curriculum did not address subjects in the humanities. Maintaining law and order, more a
policing than military function, required more emphasis on domestic politics than military skills. Officers
recruited from the Reserve Officers Training Course (ROTC) conducted at the universities were more
amenable to humanitarian considerations, but they did not generally hold command positions in the
military as they were seen as part-time soldiers. Yet with a liberal education they were possibly more
attuned to the democratic process than the officers trained at the Philippines Military Academy (PMA)
under an authoritarian military system.

Officers’ adherence to democratic practices also suffered under the Commission on Appointments (CA),
instituted to vet appointments under a functioning democracy. Politicians who were members of the CA
sought and gained allegiance from officers in exchange for approving their promotion. Many officers
consequently remained indebted to politicians and were unable to conform strictly to the military chain of
command. While the Philippine military was still being developed World War II abruptly interrupted the
military training and education program. To defend the islands, the fledgling Philippine military was
incorporated into the United States Armed Forces for the Far East (USAFFE) under the command of
General MacArthur.

At the termination of the war, the Philippines had suffered severe damage. It also had over one million
people claiming to be guerilla fighters and thus seeking a place in the military. Reconstruction of the
Philippine economy and the reconstitution of the military became priorities of the newly-installed
government under President Osmeña. Independence was also granted during this period. But the country
was inadequately equipped to assume full sovereignty.

The 1935 constitution, which was adopted at independence on 4 July 1946, provided the framework
within which a democratic state could develop.

The Constitution was supplemented by laws enacted by legislatures at the national, provincial, and
city/municipal levels of government. A centralised court system which was headed by the Supreme Court
performed the judicial function of the state and a career national bureaucracy administered the policies of
the government. In other words, the political and institutional infrastructure of a democratic government
was in place in the Philippines at the time of independence. What was not altered was the distribution of
wealth, economic power and social status (Lapitan 1989:236).

The American-style democracy exported to the Philippines was bound to encounter problems: ‘Except in
rare instances, democracy does not work when foreign models are imposed, and many features of
American democracy are ill-suited to poor, unstable and divided countries’ (Diamond 1992:27).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It’s more fun in the Philippines – observers of Philippine democracy could very well apply our tourism
slogan to our political landscape. Hard-won after centuries of colonization, years of occupation and
decades of dictatorship, Philippine-style democracy is colourful, occasionally chaotic – and arguably
inspiring.

Take elections, for example, the cornerstone of democratic institutions. Voters see their power to choose
their leaders as their strongest check on the behaviour of the government, their one chance to exact
accountability.

Analysts and commentators have branded political campaigns in the Philippines as “highly entertaining”.
The mix of old political clans, showbiz personalities and the ubiquitous song and dance that pepper the
campaign trail provide plenty of amusement. But be not deceived; the power to choose is a right and
responsibility that Filipinos hold dear.
Indeed, ballots are almost sacred in the Philippines. Voters have risked their personal safety to exercise
the right. In many cases, the public has seen it as their one weapon against those who abuse their
position.

Beyond balloting, democracy is a “government by discussion” (to quote the Indian economist Amartya
Sen), characterized by public dialogue and interaction. The vibrancy of democracy in the Philippines
hinges largely on the quality of this dialogue and interaction. A government that engages its citizens, is
inclusive in its decision-making and, most importantly, enjoys the trust of its electorate, can almost
certainly count on public support when making tough decisions. The reverse has also been seen, as in
the case of a leadership facing a “crisis of legitimacy” that was seen to make decisions out of political
expediency rather than the public good; in this case the people’s mandate, won squarely in an electoral
contest, has proven itself to be a potent force for positive change.

The authors of a working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Researchargue that democracy is
good for economic growth for various reasons, including the ability of democracies to implement
economic reforms. They present evidence from a panel of countries between 1960 and 2010 showing
that the “robust and sizeable effect of democracy on economic growth … suggests that a country that
switches from non-democracy to democracy achieves about 20% higher GDP per capita in the long run
(or roughly in the next 30 years)”.

We can see this in the case of the Philippines, which has enjoyed 60 straight quarters of economic growth
since the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Average GDP growth from 2010 to 2013 was recorded at 6.3%,
significantly higher than the 4.5% average GDP growth registered from 2001 to 2009. That this relatively
higher rate of growth has happened alongside a series of economic reforms backed up by a strong
electoral mandate should not be taken as pure coincidence. Closing loopholes in tax collection, an
overhaul in customs administration, and passing key legislation on excise taxes – these would not have
taken place in an environment which was not supportive of – or indeed, craving for – reform.

Outside of economic reforms, this strong mandate has also enabled the passage of social sector reforms
– among them legislation allowing women access to vital information and facilities pertaining to their
reproductive health, and a measure extending the education cycle to meet the global standard. These
measures had passionate advocates on both sides, and a less committed leadership could have wavered
at any point.

Improved government via more efficient tax collection and customs administration, access to vital
information and services and a better standard of education: how could one argue that this is not what
voters want when they take to the polls?

Of course, this is not always what voters get, even when they faithfully exercise their right to
choose. Roadblocks in the process remain, resulting in an occasional disconnect between what voters
want, and what they are eventually given. Recent reforms – such as those automating the process and
synchronizing elections in different parts of the country – have sought to lessen fraud, intimidation of
voters and the exercise of patronage. These instances, however, are far from being wiped out completely.
While incidents of poll violence were significantly lower in the most recent mid-term elections, putting an
end to vote-buying and the general exercise of political patronage continues to be a challenge.

More significantly, while the Philippines has embraced the democratic traditions of participation and the
freedom of choice and expression, the longer-term challenge remains to deepen the quality of its
democracy. Building political parties on ideology and merit rather than personality, strengthening
accountability mechanisms within government, creating alternative sources of reliable information, and
enabling the electorate to make informed choices – there is clearly much more work that needs to be
done, despite the progress that has been made.

The next step, however, has to be taken by the electorate itself. We have seen how a strong mandate for
change has made change happen – now we just need to sustain it by demanding continuity.

Democracy may be more fun in the Philippines, but this is not a country that takes or makes its choices
lightly. Stay tuned.

Author: Julia Andrea R. Abad is the Head of the Presidential Management Staff at the Office of the
President of the Republic of the Philippines

COMMITMENT TO DEMOCRACY
“Reality is merely an illusion; albeit a very persistent one,”, quoted by Albert Einstein. Philippines went
through the hands of different vanquisher from Spaniards, to Japanese and to Americans. We transitioned
from a dictatorship to a democratic country filled with incredible human and natural resources.

Democracy in the Philippines is a paradox. Nowadays, the republic is slowly bustling its way to an emerging
country despite the gloomy global economic landscape because the mood of our nation is always so
buoyant and in high optimism level.
But this growth that we are trying to reach is constrained because of being affected of inefficient
governance. Corruption, as an example, is consistently cited and probably the main problem underlying the
slow progress of the Philippines. Corruption is a cancer that east away what good is remaining in the
government. The incumbent administration of Aquino tried to combat graft and corruption so that we can
experience notable progress.

Reducing corruption, both within and outside of the government can lead to a substantially increased
economic competitiveness and promoting higher level of domestic and foreign investments making us a
promising nation with trusted officials.

However, we tend to relate democracy to politicians, those people who gives us a different picture of the
Philippines for the better. This leads us to a misguided belief that we need someone in the politics to address
all of the issues and flaws, which suggest that true representation is merely a large illusory. Concerns about
democracy have become the central point of political discourse and yet none has made it clear on how they
shall do it.

For the past decades, Filipinos heard promises of freedom, prosperity and peace but it was never realized.
The country’s boundaries continue to be agonized by insurgency and havoc. We experience political
dynasties that have ruthlessly carved up the country and used their power for their own benefit, forgetting
that they are where they are because of the votes of the people.

Poverty and unemployed are still in double-digit and is increasing every now and then; we have a lot of
graduates but a very few places for them to practice their profession which now leads to our fellowmen to
work abroad; hoping to create a better future for themselves. As long as corruption is evident, progress can
never be achieved.

It is difficult to retain our faith that Philippines’ will be a fully democratic country without feeling the need to
rebuild its foundations by opting for political outsiders or offspring of former leaders or dictators. We are still
experiencing a democratic fatigue with further punishments because of the ballots.

Rural areas are not doing any better, too. Years and years of being promised to have their own land, ‘til
now, farmers do not have a farm that they call their own. To take note that nowhere in Asia has produced
more plans for land reforms than the Philippines, but to no avail, it is trickling down.

Infrastructure is no less daunting as we can hear news of residents from Manila had to bear the daily
struggle of commuting to and fro the office and to always be in the middle of the worst traffic jam on earth.
What has the government been doing to resolve this?

I, as a Filipino, have all the right to be angry and disappointed with those who ruled in the government
because if we look really closely, the real reason of the Philippines inability to develop is lack of democracy
and a decaying democratic institution.

Democracy sets a real and clear strategic direction; but these are not enough because it needs to be
initiated and substantiated with an equally clear set of strategic priorities. Each of these priorities should
have a time table and targets of performance every year. In this manner, we can be able to bring democracy
back to its ideal heights. Democracy does not happen overnight, it imposes a concrete, specific and time-
bounded discipline of performance.