Routledge Handbook of the Contemporary Philippines

Mark Thompson, Eric Vincent Batalla, Mark Thompson, Eric Vincent Batalla, Mark R. Thompson, Eric V.C. Batalla, Mark R. Thompson, Eric Vincent C. Batalla

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780367580827
• eBook ISBN: 9781317485254
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Estudios regionales

The Philippines is a fascinating example of a "poor country democracy" where issues of economic development and poverty, political participation and stability, as well as ethnicity and migration are crucial. The Routledge Handbook of the Contemporary Philippines provides a comprehensive overview of the current political, economic, social, and cultural issues of the country. The Handbook is divided into the following four sections concentrating on a different aspect of the Philippines:

• domestic politics;
• foreign relations;
• economics and social policy;
• cultures and movements.

In terms of domestic politics, chapters discuss clientelism, bossism, dynasties, pork barrel and corruption as well as institutions - the presidency, congress, the judiciary, the civil service, political parties, and civilian-military relations. The Philippines is confronted with many overseas challenges, with the foreign relations section focused on the country's relationship with China, Japan, and the USA as well as assessing the impact of the Filipino diaspora community around the world. Regarding economics and social policy, authors examine industrial policy, capital flight, microfinance, technocracy, economic nationalism, poverty, social welfare programs, and livelihoods. The final section on Philippine cultures and movements highlights issues of customs, gender, religion, and nationalism while also examining various social and political forces - the peasantry, the middle class, indigenous peoples, NGOs, the left, trade unionism, the women's movement, and major insurgencies.

Written by leading experts in the field, the Handbook provides students, scholars, and policymakers of Southeast Asia with an interdisciplinary resource on the evolving politics, society, and economics of the Philippines.

PART I

Domestic politics

1

CLIENTELISM REVISITED

Masataka Kimura

Clientelism is a personal relationship between a pair of individuals with unequal socioeconomic statuses where reciprocal exchange of goods and services takes place in a particularistic way. It is found to varying degrees and in different subtypes across time and space, and has political bearing. In the context of Philippine political studies, clientelism was introduced in a systematic way by Carl H. Landé in his study of political parties in the late 1950s, where he realized that the Philippine polity was structured less by organized interest groups than by a network of mutual aid relationships between pairs of individuals or dyadic ties and that those with significance for Philippine politics were vertical ones, that is, bonds between prosperous patrons and their poor and dependent clients (Landé 1964, 1). The introduction of the dyadic model, of which clientelism is one subtype, into political science then dominated by the group approach could have been viewed as a kind of paradigm revolution and as an interesting example of how a theory developed in another discipline (the bilateral kinship model of anthropology in this case) was adopted and succeeded in political analyses. In fact, clientelism was effective in explaining the characteristics of the Philippine party system, and provided a model of political integration in the society where the gap between the rich and the poor was extremely conspicuous. Since then it has been one of the dominant conceptual frames in Philippine political studies.

Starting with the dyadic model, the following arguments focus on the theories that developed around clientelism in relation to the social phenomena that these theories tried to explain.

The dyadic model

To understand the basic characteristics of dyads, a comparison with groups is useful. In the group theory, politics is considered as a struggle among different groups to control the activities of government. It is assumed that individuals behave as a member of a group(s). A group is a collectivity of individuals who share the same political attitude and behave together to attain common goals that fit their shared attitude. It is also assumed that the individuals behave this way because to do so is reasonable to attain their goals and that those individuals who belong to the same group receive the same benefits. The focus of groups’ political activities, therefore, is on the legislative process and their political interests are secured by favorable legislations and their strict enforcement. Those individuals who share the same political attitude and form a group usually belong to the same social categories (occupation, class, race, etc.). In other words, one of the most important assumptions of the group theory is that individuals behave together with those who are alike. Another important assumption is the rule of law. It is reasonable for those individuals who belong to the same social category to behave together, because laws are written in universalistic language and their strict enforcement brings the common benefits to the same category of people.

These assumptions were, however, questionable in the Philippines as well as in many other developing countries. Personal relations were more important than interest groups in organizing political behavior, and authoritative allocation of values on the basis of favoritism were pervasive. Furthermore, the pre-martial law party system was dominated by the two major parties which were identical in terms of policies and socioeconomic support bases which included all the social classes, occupational groups and regions. Interest groups took pains to avoid permanent identification with either party. In the group theory, parties are supposed to differentiate among themselves in making policy priorities and choosing socioeconomic support bases; voters to vote for the party that best serve the interests of the social category they belong to. The dyadic model was introduced to explain such realities that the group theory could not adequately grasp.

The dyad is a relationship between a pair of individuals where exchange of values takes place. It is a direct and personal relationship, and is distinguished from interaction between two individuals that takes place because the two occupy specific positions in a formal organization, although in reality personal relationships may develop in such an organization. Theoretically there are not only supportive dyads where positive values are exchanged but also antagonistic ones where harms (negative values) are exchanged, and in reality the two can be mixed just like politics among nation states. Only the supportive ones are referred to by the term dyad in the following arguments unless otherwise specified.

The dyad has the following characteristics:

1 The values exchanged between two individuals are particularistic. While one needs to satisfy the other, he/she does not have to satisfy the social category as a whole to which the other belongs.

2 The dyad binds together two individuals who are unalike as well as those who are alike in one way or another, because one needs to exchange what he/she has with what he/she does not have. The difference between the two individuals may merely be quantitative or temporal such that, although both have similar resources, one has excess and the other has shortage. In this case, the two belong to the same social category. The difference between the two is qualitative when the two have different resources from each other. Even in this case, the two may have comparable social statuses such as a politician and a businessman who exchange political influence and financial contribution. The exchange relationship between two individuals who have comparable social statuses is called a horizontal dyad. On the other hand, the difference between the two may be of social statuses as seen in the relations between those who have wealth and power and those who do not. The exchange relationship between two individuals who have different statuses is called a vertical dyad.

3 The exchange is based on reciprocity. But, it does not have to be completely reciprocal. When the two are exposed to competition with others who can provide the same values and if the two have comparable resources, the exchange tends to be reciprocal.

4 Dyadic ties of one individual are different from one another in their quality and quantity of exchange. The level of favoritism varies from one dyad to another. This is a corollary of the fact that dyads are based on particularism.

5 Every individual has a set of dyadic ties, which may overlap, but is never identical, with those of others.

6 A dyad can be linked to other dyads. Every dyad forms a part of networks of dyads in a society. Dyadic ties that an individual has form a web-like network extending outward from him/her connecting his/her allies and their allies.

7 The size of the dyadic network of one individual is circumscribed by his/her resources, and is in proportion to his/her social status, wealth and power (Landé 1973, 104–106).

The patron-client model

Since the dyad binds together two individuals who are not alike, it can unite those who are not equal in the social status, wealth and power. This makes it possible to construct a model of political system which is structured by (networks of) vertical dyads between leaders and followers. This model may be called the patron-client model. In addition to the general characteristics of dyads, it has the following characteristics.

1 The system is structured centering around a leader who has a large following.

2 In contrast to the pre-existing groups producing their leaders, the system is formed by an aspirant leader who attracts other individuals who voluntarily become his/her followers. A corollary of this is that the leader is never replaced no matter how ineffective he/she becomes. The leader remains as a leader until the last follower disappears.

3 The system is integrated by the vertical dyadic ties between leaders and followers, whereas solidarity among followers is weak.

4 The interests that bind a leader and a follower are particularistic, because the two do not pursue their common goal but their personal goals which may be complementary but are not the same. The interests pursued are different among individuals involved. For example, a leader may pursue power and prestige, while a follower may seek protection and largesse.

5 The relationship between a leader and a follower is a voluntary one based on reciprocity. Therefore, the leader has to make efforts to bring benefits to his follower and the follower to show his/her worth. Otherwise, the follower may abandon the leader and look for another one; the leader may no longer try to provide benefits to the follower.

6 The system structured by dyadic ties between leaders and followers is dynamic and unstable. If its leader acquires new resources to provide benefits, his/her following will increase rapidly; and the reversal can also occur. When its leader disappears (for such reasons as retirement or death), although some part of the system may be taken over by his/her immediate follower, the large part of it disintegrates and the followers may gravitate toward other leaders.

7 A large system composed of vertical dyads has a multilayered pyramidal structure: immediate followers of the leader have their respective followers, each of whom in turn has followers, and so on. This multilayered structure makes the system even more unstable. If the relationship between the leader and one of his/her immediate followers breaks, the latter will leave the system together with his/her followers. The followers at the lower layer have little reason to stick to the top leader, because the former have no personal relations with, nor prospects of getting benefits from, the latter (Landé 1964: 141–148).

The traditional patron-client model

It is possible to distinguish subtypes of the patron-client model on the basis of qualities of the vertical dyad. The model Landé presented was characterized by paternalism on the part of patron and deference on the part of client, and may be called the traditional patron-client model involving an affective, diffuse pattern of exchange. He found the typical vertical dyad in the landlord-tenant relationship in the traditional Philippine rural communities, which had been formed in the late Spanish and early American colonial periods and had a two-class structure composed of a small number of big landlords and a large number of tenants. Tenants were in a chronic state of poverty and insecurity, while the landlords who had sufficient wealth to spare were expected to help the tenants in times of need. Tenants repaid landlords with special loyalty and small services.

Landé considered that the tendency of Filipinos to further their interests through the cultivation of dyadic relationships with superordinates and subordinates was not confined to the landlord-tenant situations and that this had important consequences for Philippine society and politics at the village, town, provincial and national levels. The two major parties were described as structured by vertical chains of patron-client relationships extending from great and wealthy political leaders in each province to lesser gentry politicians in each town, down further to petty leaders in each village, and finally to the clients of the latter, the ordinary peasantry. Thus both parties contained among their leaders and supporters members of all social strata, occupational groups, and regions. This also explained other characteristics of the party system such that intra-party solidarity was minimal and that interparty switching was endemic (Landé 1964, 1–10).

The machine model

The socioeconomic change has transformed the qualities of patron-client relationships and the viewpoint that linked this transformation with political change yielded new theories, among them application of the machine model. The machine is a political organization typically found in immigrant-choked cities in the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century which is interested less in political principle than in securing and holding office for its leaders and distributing income to those who run it and work for it. It relies on what it accomplishes in a concrete way for its supporters and not on what it stands for. The sociopolitical conditions that gave rise to the machine were also present in many developing countries, which included selection of political leaders through elections, mass adult suffrage and a relatively high degree of electoral competition over time in the context of fragmented political power, widespread ethnic cleavages and/or social disorganization and mass poverty (Scott 1969, 1142–1159).

Compared with the traditional patron-client relationships, the vertical dyads found in the machine are more of instrumental relations maintained by specific, short-run material inducements, and are therefore less durable. The transformation of the qualities of patron-client relations in the Philippines as well as other Southeast Asian countries are explained as follows. First, the commercialization of economy and the penetration of the central (colonial) government into local communities made patrons’ positions vulnerable to external forces. As a result, the relations became fragile and less durable. Second, differentiation of the socioeconomic structure meant differentiation of patrons’ resources and made the scope of patron-client exchange narrower and more specific and the patron-client clusters distinct from one another. Third, while the traditional patron’s resource bases were local such as landholding, importance of external resources such as office-holding increased radically. Since the new resource bases were prone to be affected by the developments at the center, patrons tended to pursue short-run interests. Fourth, as the patron-client ties became weaker and less comprehensive, and because the new patrons were often from outside the local community, instrumental nature of exchange became more prominent. Fifth, from the aforementioned changes followed the breakdown of local patron monopoly and intensification of factional competition. Lastly, the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Foreword
• Introduction
• PART I Domestic politics
• PART II Foreign relations
• PART III Economics and social policy
• PART IV Cultures and movements
• Index