WHEN we ask this uncomfortable question, many Filipinos become squeamish and defensive. As the go-to showcase of democracy in Asia, Filipinos appear to be reluctant defenders of it, as they have not really been good in its actual practice. Yet, it takes some nuance and historical context to explain why democracy has failed us or, perhaps, why Filipinos themselves failed democracy after it was restored through the Feb. 25, 1986 People Power revolt.
The way the alarming shooting in the Senate unfolded has led many Filipinos to believe that there are, indeed, inherent flaws in our no-holds-barred, Philippine-style democracy. Our democracy is vastly different from Western liberal democracies with strong political parties, clear-cut ideologies and professional politicians. Philippine democracy is unwieldy, patronage-oriented and personality-driven, frequently forsaking the people’s interests for political ambitions and the private enrichment of a few political dynasties.
There are three simple reasons democracy has not worked well in the Philippines. First, the nation’s ruling political and economic elites do not see their own long-term interests as aligned with those of ordinary Filipinos. Many among the ruling class believe they can continue to prosper even when millions of their countrymen remain trapped in poverty. The avarice of politicians knows no bounds. Taxpayers’ money is pillaged, national resources are exploited, and illicit wealth is stashed away in foreign banks and tax havens in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands.
As a consequence, the uneven distribution of wealth produces poor education outcomes, malnutrition, inadequate infrastructure, and chronic underdevelopment. When people remain stubbornly poor and moronic, they care less about democracy as they struggle to put food on their tables and roofs over their heads. The political and economic elites thrive in such indifference and disempowerment. Political dynasties continue to be elected into office despite their widespread corruption and underperformance. Meanwhile, the economic oligarchs monopolize key industries and other public utilities, often resulting in prohibitive costs to consumers due to the absence of competition and free trade. Democracy is a farce when political and economic power are concentrated in a few ruling families and scarcity abounds despite abundance.
Second, despite the democratic preparation we had under American colonial rule, Philippine society is historically feudal, patriarchal and oppressive by nature. Half a century of training in democracy was not enough for Filipinos to inculcate the self-sacrifice, commitment and national solidarity necessary for democracy to flourish. Even the revolts against Spain and the United States were largely spearheaded by the landed elite and intellectual class, while the masses served as their cannon fodder. When the country finally broke free from colonial rule, native elites simply took over and, in many ways, were more oppressive than their colonial masters. Indeed, Jose Rizal once warned: “The slaves of yesterday often become the masters of tomorrow.”
Democracy cannot survive on high election turnouts. It demands civic virtue and social trust, as well as a shared identity. The seeds of democracy might take centuries before they become deeply ingrained in Filipinos’ collective consciousness due to the existing quasi-caste system.
And third, democracy relies on strong state capacity and a broader middle class capable of counterbalancing the ruling elite. In the Philippines, however, the bureaucracy has historically been weak, politicized and emasculated by design. Similarly, those in the middle class who are elevated in stature and wealth frequently adopt the same opportunistic nature of the ruling elite. Many resist reforms in land distribution, progressive taxation or expanded social welfare for the poor if they threaten their own income and status.
Ultimately, the real reason democracy has struggled in the country is that Filipinos remain a divided nation. The problem is not only that the rich exploit the poor, but also that the poor are unable to benefit from the country’s wealth because of deep social, political and economic divisions.
Democracy, as a government by and for the people, can only work when a nation shares a common vision of how wealth should be distributed, how differences should be settled, and how civic virtue prevails over vested interests. If factionalism and competing elites triumph over the people’s welfare, then democracy is nothing but a bogus attempt to create a false sense of nationhood.