Political Boom-Bust Cycle

The Philippines takes pride in having the most extensive experience in electoral politics in the Southeast Asian Region. Elections have been conducted at the national and local level since the Americans introduced it in the 1900s. However, the uneven social and economic development in Philippine society has engendered an elitist and clientelistic democracy embedded in an underdeveloped economy. Ferdinand Marcos exploited the illiberal nature of Philippine electoral democracy in 1972 to declare martial law and establish authoritarian rule for fourteen years. The groundswell of opposition to the Marcos dictatorship led to a crisis of legitimation that marked the beginning of the end for the authoritarian regime. The ouster of the Marcos dictatorship by a people power uprising in 1986 ushered a wave of democratization not only in the Philippines but the region as well.

The post-Marcos democratic transition has seen intermittent periods of political and economic stability amid domestic and regional instability. Despite the threat of military coups, the administration of President Corazon Aquino managed to survive and oversee the drafting of a new constitution and the peaceful transition of presidential powers to her successor Fidel Ramos. President Ramos embarked on an ambitious peace and development program that provided a relative period of economic growth and political stability. Nonetheless, the 1997 Asian financial crisis has decimated much of the economic gains of the Ramos administration.

The election of popular movie actor Joseph Estrada to the presidency in 1998 and his subsequent ouster in a second people power uprising in 2001 that installed Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the presidency clearly demonstrate the fragility of Philippine democracy. The failed attempt of disgruntled Estrada supporters, largely drawn from the poverty-stricken masses, to mount its own people power uprising against President Arroyo marked the reemergence of a legitimation crisis that is reflective of the deep political and socio-economic divisions in the country. The legitimation crisis was exacerbated by a mutiny led by junior military officers in late 2003.

Within this context of contemporary political history, the 2004 election can be seen, not only as a referendum on the performance of Arroyo administration, but as a means of addressing the crisis of legitimation in the Philippines. However, the conduct and outcome of the May 10, 2004 national and local elections in the Philippines tend to reinforce the fundamental paradoxes of democratic governance in the country that have precipitated the current national crisis.

A Continuing Crisis of Legitimation

The ongoing political turbulence besieging the Arroyo administration must be seen within the larger perspective of a legitimation crisis. EDSA Dos and EDSA Tres marked the reemergence of a potential legitimation crisis that reflected the deep political and socio-economic divisions in the country. While the legality of the Arroyo administration has been upheld with finality by the Supreme Court, its legitimacy has been held in doubt. The potential legitimation crisis was exacerbated by the Oakwood mutiny and the failed impeachment of CJ Davide in late 2003. These events have served to weaken the legitimate institutions of the State akin to a political “boom-bust” cycle.

The 2004 election was an institutional mechanism for mitigating the potential crisis of legitimation in the Philippines. However, flawed administration of the electoral process, wanton use of government resources for partisan political purposes and allegations of fraud and massive cheating have diminished the political exercise as a credible legitimating mechanism. Hence, the 2004 failed to resolve the issue of legitimacy. A combination of factors has contributed to precipitate the diminution of PGMA’s legitimacy to govern.

The current political institutions in the Philippines were forged in the aftermath of the successful struggle against fourteen years of authoritarian dictatorship under the Marcos regime. In 1987, the Philippines completed its democratic transition with the adoption of a new constitution that was overwhelmingly ratified by three-fourths of the Filipino electorate. With the reestablishment of a centralized presidential democracy anchored on a majoritarian electoral system, the 1987 Constitution restored institutional continuity with the previous 1935 Constitution that was drafted under American colonial rule. Being the embodiment of the “supreme law of the land,” the 1987 Constitution serves not only as the preeminent legal and institutional framework, but a primary source of legitimation, as well.

Legitimacy is viewed here as the citizen’s willingness to comply with a system of rule regardless of how this is achieved. Hence, the maintenance of legitimacy does not depend on constitutional edict alone. It should also be sustained by the acceptance of political institutions by individual and collective actors. Institutions are not independent from the economic, socio-cultural and international context in which it is embedded. Set within the “embedding context” of an underdeveloped economy, personalistic and patriarchal culture, a weak state combined with an ethno-linguistically diverse nation, and neo-colonialism, political institutions and processes such as elections are sure to be filled with contradictions and paradoxes.

Like a Virgin

Been hearing about it. Read about it. Read it.

Now its my turn to try it.

My first blog post!

test message