Since the dust has settled after the 2025 midterm elections, Philippine politics appears stuck in an eerie stasis. With the surprise rally of “senatoriables” from the DuterTen slate, which tied with the candidates of the incumbent-backed Alyansa (not to mention the dark horse victory of oppositionists Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan), President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. appears to be on the back-foot. The indecisive stand-off between the Senate and the House of Representatives regarding Vice-President Sara Duterte-Carpio’s impeachment, despite the emergence of a consensus regarding its necessity, does not paint the picture of decisive leadership across branches. We can expect this to drag on until (if not beyond) Marcos Jr.’s fourth State of the Nation Address.
Marcos Jr. and Duterte-Carpio’s persistently dominating the headlines can be demoralizing and demobilizing — especially for Filipino voters and stakeholders not enjoying this dynastic “sabong”(cockfight). Not helping is the fact that international coverage and even mainstream political analysis continue to cast this feud in “proxy war” terms. Either we read the results of the 2025 midterms as a way of figuring the odds of VP Duterte-Carpio’s political survival, or as a way to determine whether the Philippines swings back to being a spear-carrier for competing superpowers — be it an increasingly pariah United States under Donald Trump, or a persistently hegemonic bullying China.
Dynastic politics gaining priority over the diverse policy and governance concerns of an economically active yet socially precarious nation can never be good for our democratic health. Previous social science scholarship and policy research have already demonstrated that the persistence of dynastic rule has a negative impact on equitable distribution of resources and governance. As is the refrain of many advocates, it does not bode well for the development of inclusive and democratic norms. For that matter, tying the security priorities and international commitments of a country to its ruling family’s vested interest does not make for a reliable stakeholder in global governance.
Nevertheless, the reality is that dynastic feuds can and have dominated the political life of democratic societies — even those with better-built institutions and higher quality of life standards.
Peter Haldén demonstrated in his 2018 book, Family Power, that kinship and family ties, rather than being uniformly abandoned by modernizing societies, is a reality that governed political relationships for centuries across Europe and Asia. They are, nevertheless, highly amorphous, subject to negotiation and never guaranteeing uniform authority. While they are a symptom of political monopolization, they are as vulnerable to circumstances and twists as anybody.
Comparative scholarship provides nuance and strategic insights.
A 2017 review of the field by Benny Geys and Daniel M. Smith suggested that the emergence and perpetuation of political dynasties can be explained by three ideas. One is “the power-treatment effect of incumbency” (where lengthy terms of service by politicians have given them built-in advantages to build dynasties). Another points to the role of institutional structures (usually taking the form of political parties that perpetuate internal dynastic dominion), or environments that cultivate dominant families who have experience, expertise, and resources.
These explanations, to some extent, have been seen across differing levels of local and national governance in the Philippines — resulting in both negative development results, as well as long-term governance continuities (both stagnant and progressive). Bigger territories (like Indonesia, as analyzed by Yoes Kenawas in 2015, and India, as studied by Ambar Ghosh in 2023) have also incentivized the formation of dynasties due to cultural, economic, and societal factors — guaranteeing a semblance of cultural continuity and a form of quality control within its elite classes.
In short, the persistence of dynastic candidates (and of the voting base that keeps backing them) cannot be solely explained by a lack of options or our perennial prejudices regarding the sheer ignorance or stupidity of voters. They come from well-considered concerns over security, the need for protection and patronage, as well as the persistent shortcomings of institutions ostensibly designed to supersede familial ties.
Dynastic political affiliations remain “the devil we know.” For a persistently precarious Filipino population — ever on the verge of gaining social mobility through globally connected job opportunities and overseas remittances yet perpetually failed by institutions — kinship ties are a “safety net.” Their comforting certainties, however flawed, are difficult to wean away from. Furthermore, even liberal and progressive forces are not immune to dynastic and personalistic strife. Civil society organizations and movements have struggled to find unity due to personal and ideological clashes. Even our most celebrated reformist leaders and Presidents have not shied away from employing familial and kinship narratives to mobilize support. The temptation to return to the familiar, however much it chains and binds, is always there.
The discomfort we have with the shameless squabbling of the Marcoses, Romualdezes, and the Dutertes (with the rest of our political elite dancing along) may as well be an indictment of our kinship and cultural norms. Many of our countrymen continue to suffer from families and communities unable to genuinely cultivate, support, and sustain our aspirations for the future. This alienation drives us to seek affinity with narratives of power, ascent, and new chances, even if they ultimately fail to empower, and merely exploit and delude.
The formation of genuinely caring, sustainable, and reinforcing communities (not to mention revolutions) relies on the positive, collective and inclusive reorientation of such kinship ties — not simply taking them for granted. If we are to build new families that will be the bedrock of this nation, we need first to rediscover who our genuine kin, friends, and comrades are, and what we all collectively understand is our shared mandate. This is the challenge of opposition forming separate from the Marcos and Duterte camps. This should be our immediate goal for the next three years.
Hansley A. Juliano serves as an instructor with the Department of Political Science, School of Social Sciences, at the Ateneo de Manila University. He is finishing his doctoral research at the Graduate School of International Development, Nagoya University. He also serves as a radio show producer for Radyo Katipunan 87.9, Jesuit Communications Foundation.
Stuck in a dynastic imbroglio
Philippines Pandemic
Post a Comment