Vote Buying, Patronage Politics, and the Limits of Voter Education
By Karl Garcia
Vote buying is often explained in moral terms: corrupt politicians offer money, voters accept it, democracy suffers. Yet our discussion reveals a more complex reality. Vote buying persists not simply because voters lack education or critical thinking, but because it is embedded in a system shaped by economic vulnerability, political incentives, weak enforcement, elite financing, and social norms.
1. Is educating people enough?
Education is necessary but insufficient.
Civic awareness and critical thinking can:
✔ Improve voters’ ability to detect manipulation
✔ Encourage issue-based evaluation
✔ Strengthen democratic values
✔ Reduce susceptibility to propaganda
But knowledge alone struggles against structural forces:
• Poverty and survival pressures
• Patron–client relationships
• Weak law enforcement
• Campaign finance distortions
Understanding the harm does not automatically change behavior when immediate needs dominate.
2. “We take the money but vote freely” — does this solve it?
While some voters genuinely exercise independence, the broader effects remain problematic:
• Normalizes transactional politics
• Sustains expensive vote-buying machinery
• Disadvantages reformist candidates
• Creates psychological reciprocity
• Reinforces patronage expectations
Even imperfect compliance can still distort turnout, perceptions, and long-term norms.
3. The deeper layer: Elite money and diversified financing
We explored the possibility that wealthy actors — the “one percenters” — may finance multiple candidates simultaneously. This does not require conspiracy; it follows rational risk diversification:
✔ Hedge against electoral uncertainty
✔ Maintain influence regardless of winner
✔ Protect economic interests
Consequences include:
• Narrowing of policy choices
• Blurred accountability
• Persistence of elite influence across administrations
• Public cynicism (“nothing really changes”)
Vote buying at the retail level may be downstream of upstream campaign finance dynamics.
4. Can a critical thinking seminar series “cut it”?
Seminars can help if designed properly, but they cannot solve the problem alone.
Effective seminars must be:
Localized – grounded in barangay realities
Psychology-aware – explaining influence tactics
Economically honest – acknowledging survival dilemmas
Community-reinforced – building shared norms
Sustained – not one-off events
Education works best when tied to lived experience and social reinforcement.
5. Why seminars alone fall short
Because vote buying is fundamentally an:
Incentive problem, not just a knowledge problem
Where:
• Cash offers are immediate
• Poverty is real
• Enforcement is weak
• Patronage networks are functional
• Campaign spending is money-intensive
Rational cognition competes with rational survival.
6. Solutions beyond education
A. Enforcement & Deterrence
- Faster investigations
- Visible penalties
- Safe reporting channels
Without credible punishment, illegality lacks meaning.
B. Reducing Voter Vulnerability
✔ Stronger social protection
✔ Stable employment
✔ Universal access to services
✔ Less dependence on political intermediaries
Economic security weakens vote buying’s leverage.
C. Campaign Finance Reform
- Real-time donor transparency
- Spending limits
- Independent audits
- Restrictions on cash-heavy operations
Reduce the financial arms race fueling both elite capture and vote buying.
D. Strengthening Political Parties
Programmatic parties shift politics from personalities and patronage toward platforms and policy competition.
E. Civic Technology
• Reporting tools
• Crowd-sourced monitoring
• Fact-checking networks
• Candidate comparison platforms
Digital transparency can raise risks for violators.
F. Cultural Reframing
Shift narratives:
From → “Election = cash season”
To → “Election = hiring decision for public leadership”
Norms shape expectations.
7. The overarching insight
Vote buying is not merely about:
• Greedy politicians
• Ignorant voters
It reflects a self-reinforcing ecosystem:
Elite money → Campaign dependency → Patronage networks → Vote buying → Policy capture → Persistent poverty → Continued vulnerability
Breaking the cycle requires multi-layered intervention.
Conclusion
Education and critical thinking are indispensable. They cultivate awareness, skepticism, and civic responsibility. But expecting them to eliminate vote buying without parallel reforms ignores political economy realities.
Education changes minds.
Institutions change behavior.
Economic security changes incentives.
Sustainable democratic reform emerges only when these forces work together.
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
“Solutions beyond education”
I believe the solution is related to what Francis said here some weeks ago which was basically make the average citizen (especially those who vote) “rich” or “wealthy” as Irineo preferred. That is a big, multi-faceted task, and formal education, the kind you get in schools and classrooms, is only one facet.
Where does one start? I think the goal should be creating as level a playing field as possible. So our leadership (assuming they want a better Philippines for all, not just themselves and their clans) should work towards making even the playing fields everywhere, like in education, health care, business, government, etc. etc. Easy to see that such is a mindset, something you would find in a politically mature society, is not present even in our leadership class, the elites as we sometimes call them. And mind you, those people are “educated.” Will it happen soon? Based on current trends, probably not in the foreseeable future.
But that may change because mankind is changing at an amazing pace. I remember my father who was born in 1919 often commented with amazement how mankind went from the Wright brothers to the moon in less than a century. Mankind did not see technological progress as fast as that in its entire history. If that was going at say 100 miles an hour, I believe we are now going at Mach 1 speed. So change, positive or negative, could happen very very quickly.
Muchas Gracias!
The US installed the broad education system that still exists today, overcrowded, under staffed in terms of quality teachers, lacking computers, tending toward rote education, but capable of giving every Filipino opportunities, many of which are squandered by poor home living conditions. The point is, it is an educated nation. The home environment mainly defeats its full utilization. Government for the most part is sincere, today, after Sec Duterte resigned. Sec Angara is working earnestly to shape a better system.
From this system, bright people do emerge, go to college, and find opportunities where they exist, often overseas. It is not a nation of dummies. There is a well-educated “moneyed class” that manages the many big and successful businesses here. The Chinese Filipino subset does provide a better home environment that appreciates and uses their education well. So they anchor the business elite in the same way Jewish businessmen and women anchor financial and entertainment industries in the US.
My point, I suppose, is that there is more to it than schools, the cultural environment being what it is. And it is more productive and successful than it might seem if one considers overseas employment a win rather than a loss FOR THE EDUCATION SYSTEM.
Actually the education system the US brought to the Philippines trended strongly away from rote education even back in those days. The Thomasites were quite “progressive” for their era, and were of a group of American educators broadly termed the “progressive education movements” in the US. The Thomasite method espoused active open discussion, observation-based science, critical thinking, and sought to replace students being “taught at” to students being “taught to” in order to teach practical skills and vocational training. The Thomasite method also had a philosophy of Realism (emphasis on truthful, objective, and provable representation of the subject matter without the confusion of idealization).
Rote education is an artifact of Spanish education, as were many forms of European Enlightenment education where a lecturer spoke one-way to the assembled students in a lecture hall/theater without being questioned. I guess things can get historically murky when old Spanish words were replaced by direct English words but the meaning and intent was not replaced by new ideas (e.g. la lectura -> lecture, la recitación -> recital, and so on). Btw the education system instituted by Queen Isabella II’s royal Educational Decree of 1863, while perhaps considered backwards in our time, was considered very progressive for her time, so much so it was one of the major points of attack by the Carlists (Spanish Conservatives).
As for a home environment that is not conducive to education and progress, I agree this is important yet often overlooked. In the culture of China, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan there are many proverbs using a mirror as a metaphor for a role model. One as paraphrased:
“The king is a mirror for the officials. Officials are a mirror for the people. Parents are a mirror for their children.”
So while yes, it is a failing for parents and family elders to not model good behavior, it is a larger moral failing for officials and leaders to not be a role model for the people.
For Chinoys, who originally migrated from the Mainland where these philosophical systems derived, there is a recognition that through education one can better themselves. The ancient monarchies of all the above mentioned countries did not have a nobility requirement to become a government official. The requirement was to be a scholar who could pass the civil examination which did not see class or origin. So even the son of a poor farmer could become an important official through education.
These philosophical systems did not come out of no where. It seems to me that many of the ancient philosophers of both the West and the East were just repeating provable “common sense” and modeling good behavior themselves. By modeling good behavior, they show that if one changes their habit, one can gain a benefit. But it must be *shown* through example. Just ordering someone to believe something or do something as is often the case in the Philippines has a low likelihood of demonstrating benefits of changing.
Yes, I know rote is the current agenda as there are few teachers with a psychological teaching framework. Indeed, psychology is a shunned field for crazies in the Philippines. But the education foundation is broad and real. That was my main point. And it generates a subset of competent and intelligent young people who build that sector of the Philippines that is productive. it could be a bigger subset, sure. And young people could graduate with more wholesome critical thinking capacities, yes. And the nation could do a better job of directing them to homeland jobs rather than overseas, for sure. And I think today’s government is not being negligent about all this, but is constrained by social values, political realities, and lack of focus/execution. There is a lot going on. There is a lot here.
Yes, I get your points and fully agree. It is also true as you said that the Philippines generates not just a subset of competent and intelligent young people each year, but I would argue that it is a much more sizable subset than generally recognized.
But the problem here is that subset somehow have figured out how to obtain personal motivation to go further than most. Many have arrangements with OFW and overseas relatives who contractually agree to support their studies and board review classes as long as for example they accept the condition of not having a boyfriend/girlfriend during their studying years. I know of others, girls and gays in cases unspoken but not rare, who accept selling their bodies to foreign men to fund their studies.
The most logical “outside impetus” would still be for those who had learned new things abroad to come back home and force that change. The system “back home” is hard to change because those who are able to get into power and hold power do not have an incentive for change. Maybe prior generations of Filipinos who went abroad did not come back to help out as seen in other countries, but I am increasingly seeing signs that Millennials are coming back and changing things in small ways. I would hope GenZ Filipinos do the same. Small change when added up becomes big change. So there is hope. It might just take a while to happen to build critical mass.
I agree with weaker law enforcement, with high ranking officials as the ex ombudman martires, digong’s appointee, did not disclose his own finding to grant senator villanueva a motion for reconsideration hence not barred from public office villanueva is. while everyone thought a decision is forthcoming, the decision has already been made with none of use the wiser. all hushed up.
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2129348/martires-secret-decision-stops-villanueva-dismissal
Thanks
>>Education and critical thinking are indispensable. They cultivate awareness, skepticism, and civic responsibility. But expecting them to eliminate vote buying without parallel reforms ignores political economy realities.
Education changes minds.
Institutions change behavior.
Economic security changes incentives.
Sustainable democratic reform emerges only when these forces work together.<<
I got curious. When did vote buying begin in the Philippines, in 1946? Apparently not so. It was introduced during the Spanish era (300+ years) and 45 or so years of American tutelage failed to erase it, or even curb it.
We had the opportunity since 1946 to have a Philippines “run like hell” or run like heaven by Filipinos. Looking at results after some 80 years I think it is safe to conclude that we chose the former – “run like hell.”
MLQ declared back in his time: “we can fix it.”
Two questions:
If you ask me I am doing this with the wish that some future leader will get something out of this. If Internet archive preserves this website and its multiple data centers don’t get destroyed.
In short I wish to fix what is fixable and judo aikido those that will turn weakness to strengths and threat to opportunities.
every reader who passes by and absorbs article and discussion content also can make a difference, being inspired to think and maybe act differently.
Sonny once inspired me with the Catholic “mustard seed” analogy when I expressed a sense of our writing and discussing here being seemingly in vain. That analogy meant that the Word can be planted, grow and create new seeds in turn.
Thanks for that, IBRS!
Exactly. One reader, if it is the right one, can make up for all the articles written to no one. LOL.
LOL
Re When did vote buying begin in the Philippines?
From Prof. Laura Lee Junker:
“However, Philippine chiefs also attracted followers and maintained the highly volatile factions at the core of Philippine political structure by formal gift presentations, sometimes involving porcelains and other exotic status goods, to loyal subordinates. In addition to this more formalized gift giving between chiefs and clients, ethnohistorical sources suggest, attachment to a well-connected and powerful chief generally ensured a share, however meager, of whatever foreign wealth could be obtained through participation in chiefly sponsored trading and raiding expeditions.”
— “Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms,” page 19, 2019
https://books.google.com/books?id=yO2yG0nxTtsC&printsec=copyright#v=onepage&q&f=false
Political gift-giving to maintain follower support has always been a core part of Austronesian society, thus Philippine cultures, and vote buying is just the modern incarnation of the cultural practice. Prof. Junker details how Philippine elites of old would either raid neighbors to steal or trade from visiting merchants to obtain luxury items (porcelains, metalware and weapons) to bestow upon the most loyal followers. Prof. Junker documents instances where chiefs would submit to an outside power (whether Filipino or foreign) in order to obtain goods, which then were gifted to followers as if the chief was the source. Stealing from the public coffers, getting monetary backing from business and foreign interests, taking on national debt, then trickling some of that down to followers… one can see how these modern practices are descended from their prior antecedents.
A big mistake I think in Westernized thinking among some Filipinos is to view something inherent in the culture as a moral failing as framed in a non-Filipino understanding of morality. The question instead would be how to use cultural traits, which cannot be changed just like genes cannot be changed, in a different way that works better for the present situation in order to lead to a more positive outcome.
CV will CERTAINLY know what Marcos Sr.’s Rolex 12 generals were, not necessarily who exactly but that doesn’t matter..
I like my share of what Bavaria’s “chiefs” earn through trade, even as I cannot eat as much pork roast as I did three decades ago when I joined them. Joke!
But not just a joke as I will get to the actual point later.
my simplified definition of culture is beliefs and behaviors we learn from parents and peers, often by observation and imitation.
They are quite HARD TO CHANGE as they kept societies together in the ages before literacy and discussion, when surviving and thriving was the main concern.
I think cultural traits can EVOLVE. I find scenes from Netflix Vikings amusing, especially when actors have accents in English like modern Scandinavians.
I also have read interpretations of Odysseus having both Bronze Age (time of the epic) warrior and Iron Age (time it was told by Homer) trader attributes.
Cultures are of course adaptations over centuries to how people lived, and do evolve but usually take more time and some are left behind, unfortunately.
So does one go by Xiao Chua’s defining Ramon Magsaysay and Jesse Robredo as modern datus who brought ginhawa, well-being, to their people? I think thought and opinion leaders can somewhat guide the course a culture takes. Either towards being a palamunin culture (negative evolution) or towards being a culture where people can find work that gives them ginhawa and money to buy their own lechon – or pork roast like me haha.
————————-
Re CVs question, MLQ3 documented that there were forms of vote-buying or at least enticement even during 1930s UP Student Council elections, when candidates were expected to “libre”, meaning treat fellow students as part of their campaign.
I think Heydarian called the Philippines a fiesta democracy, and yes why not eat lechon if it is for free and one has no blood pressure issues?
————————-
also related to CVs question on vote-buying and his comment on making the Philippines wealthier, would it work in the USA or Germany?
Would even the poorest homeless man in San Franciso, or a social welfare recipient in Germany of the kind who hasn’t had a real job in a decade, take $300 or €500 for their vote in any very theoretical scenario, assuming he thinks I prefer immediate gratification as politicians have failed me anyway?
First of all even if that worked, it would drain the resources of a candidate in the West, while the wide differences in wealth in the Philippines made the old alleged rate of “one Aquino” (PHP500) a decade ago or twice that allegedly nowadays feasible over there.
————
finally, there is this ad by RC Cola (YT video below) that I showed to someone who works in the advertising business. He told me that it is excellent as it represents what Filipino working classes want in life. Politicians need to address that, maybe even having someone come out and sing like in the video.
What the Filipino Catholic Church probably understood better than most Filipino liberals BTW is to convince Filipinos using own concepts. There is the interesting concept of damayan which Vicente Rafael wrote about regarding EDSA Dos, where even in usually pushy Metro Manila people gave each other room and respect – something like what one can feel when one is in church in the Philippines. Or the spirit of one of Will Villanueva’s classic articles here:
Atty. Leni’s Angat Buhay also builds on the ground-up community spirit aka bayanihan of Filipinos that doesn’t ONLY rely on the chief, but that goes further..
I think part of the frustration derives from the short lifespan of a human relative to the expanse of human progress across time. For most of human history in any society culture and life were stagnant, changing little. When change did happen it tended to happen in explosive spurts before leveling out again into a new equilibrium. The 20th century was a period of immense technological and social change which may cause impatience as the equilibrium has not settled evenly yet across the nations of the world, though that century was by no means the most rapidly advancing time period of human history.
Then there will always be pockets of resistance to new ways of thinking, usually in places that did not gain many benefits of change yet. There can also be regression. Evangelical Christians in the US led multiple “Christian Revivals” that were all progressive in nature, until the current revival of this current period since the late 1960s that has been markedly regressive.
People don’t tend to want to change unless they recognize a benefit in changing. Like the lola who in her old age had the “light bulb” moment when I explained to her a new way of planting kamote, she had recognized the benefits and changed. Generally I am more patient than most people; additionally so when I am trying to help.
Come to think about it the Thomasites numbered less than 600, spread thinly across a huge archipelago. I truly believe there needs to be a Thomasite revival of sorts to teach the people, with patience and understanding, new ways of doing things where they will see a benefit in changing.
Couple that with more available and higher paying jobs where even if one must do laborious work, at least one would be compensated fairly for that work. It would be easier to explain things by pointing Filipino A who is a reluctant tambay to his neighbor Filipino B who had a job at a local factory and have Filipino A immediately recognize the benefits of having gainful employment which coincidentally is available at the factory.
I previously wrote about the usefulness of shaming in society to encourage good behavior, but shaming can also be detrimental when one is shamed but not explained to how he may avoid shame in the future. I often hear poor Filipinos be shamed for being poor, so the poor fellow envies the rich (let’s say the BPO worker at risk of losing their jobs per the recent socmed commentary) but does not have an incentive to change. BPO is not an easy industry to get into as there are limited slots and a lot of positions are filled by internal referrals and others already having backers.
“The question instead would be how to use cultural traits, which cannot be changed just like genes cannot be changed, in a different way that works better for the present situation in order to lead to a more positive outcome.” – Nguyen
The Americans apparently did exactly that, but with respect to their interests, not the interest of the Filipinos. American officials taught Filipino leaders how to use Civil Service appointments and Public Works contracts to reward loyalists.
From AI: >>The “Pork Barrel”: The very concept of the “Pork Barrel” (using government funds for local projects to win votes) was a direct American export. Filipino politicians like Quezon and Osmeña were “A+ students” who learned that the best way to stay in power was to control the budget—a trick they learned from their American mentors.<<
So what the Americans got was stability and cooperation from their territory, instead of a more perfect democracy. That served American interests as far as they (the Americans) were concerned. The Americans could have done things differently. They could have built a merit based bureaucracy first, instead of “buying” the cooperation of the already landed principalia class. Such a bureaucracy would not be beholden to the principalia class that could bestow such favors people through government appointments and public works contracts. But that would take more work, more time, more monetary investment AND who knows if that would have worked anyway?
Apparently the US did try to fight the “padrino” system they had strengthened. During the term of Governor-General Leonard Wood tried to control the power of the purse of the Philippine government, but Quezon and Osmeña and their allies in government fought him and he lost. From then on, the US decided to go with the flow so to speak – “if you can’t beat them, join them.”
I do not agree with this. It was clear within a few years that the US shifted from a policy of holding the Philippines as a colony (to prevent the Germans, Dutch and English from taking the Philippines) to a policy of preparing the Philippines for independence that would be strong enough to avoid being captured by the aforementioned or future foreign interests.
If Filipinos misuse what has been taught, which was based on the most progressive best practices at that time, whose fault is it really?
Pork barrel is an American term, yes, but by 1898 pork barrel and patronage politics was being rapidly phased out in the US in favor of a merit-based bureaucracy. If the Philippines imported a term, does it mean that is the fault of wherever the term was imported from? No.
Also in terms of “doing things differently,” I don’t believe the US owes the Philippines anything. Just like after the conclusion of the GWOT the US owes Iraq and Afghanistan nothing. The US has poured more than enough blood and treasure to help out, nearly 130 years in fact, and yes Americans are a generous people who will continue to help out where we can. But it is up to the receiver to be appreciative just as it is up to the giver to be gracious.
If one looks at the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, they probably made the worst of what the US offered them – while Germany and Japan made the best and the Philippines is probably somewhere in the middle. I hope we don’t see future reports about the Philippines similar to those about 1960s Afghanistan, describing a country that USED to be modern but totally turned its back on human rights and democracy – after for instance massive propaganda against the Duterte ICC trial.
Re the German example, Germany did utilize the US support of democracy (and many were probably happy that the Nuremberg trials took the burden off a country where about 1/3 most probably still sympathized with the old ideology) to rebuild on old democratic traditions like the failed attempts of 1848 and 1919 – and the colors of both, as I detailed in the article below, a bit of an appeal (a sad one, check date) to Filipinos not to forget what yellow and pink had meant. You mentioned the 1947 Constitution of Japan and the postwar democratization, definitely also helped at the start by McArthur being military governor, but also coming from OWN traditions, but modernized. So what happens historically always is what a country makes out of it.
The difficulty Afghanistan has, and Iraq has to a lesser extent, are both sectarian AND tribal disagreements. But even in those countries they managed to build unified kingdoms (and even empires) at certain periods, mostly associated with moderate rulers who were able to balance sectarian and tribal concerns. $8 trillion and more than 20 years of blood spent could not change countries when the *people do not want change.*
Germany and Japan did have unified culture, and relatively more recently had unified kingdoms and empire. The cultural “muscle memory” alone of being able to organize something out of less order provides a great advantage when society decides to organize society into another direction. Germans and Japanese have another big advantage, and that is the advantage of being capable of feeling shame that becomes an impetus for changing behavior, even though for Germans shame is based on Christian morality while for the Japanese shame is based on Confucian morality. What then in societies where the shameless is elevated and fêted as heroes?
As for the Philippines, it does seem to me as a non-Filipino that the Katipunan “did a number” on the future strength and cohesiveness of the Philippines. To this day the Philippines is still paying for the mistakes of the boastful Katipunan, who did not heed Rizal’s pragmatic calls for caution. The Malaysia federal example where each sultanate is responsible for its own internal development then the sultanates get together nationally to do national things may be a better model of organization for the Philippines. The Philippines is not Indonesia where one large ethnic group imposed its will and culture upon the entire nation.
“$8 trillion and more than 20 years of blood spent could not change countries when the *people do not want change.*” – Nguyen
I agree, which is why earlier I popped these questions on this thread:
>>MLQ declared “we can fix it.”
Two questions:
The answer to both questions is: It is up to Filipinos to fix the problems of the Philippines, no one else. God-willing, with appreciation for any accepted outside help of gracious friends where ever that may occur to speed the process up.
“Walang hiya!” is what women in old Filipino dramas shout when a certain type of man (usually ugly) falls over them.
Well, Duterte in all his ways was the embodiment of “walang hiya” yet was still voted into power by many.
The early Katipunan from 1892 to late 1895 still kind of remembered what its predecessor, Rizal’s short-lived La Liga Filipina, was about.
1896 had Bonifacio make two key mistakes: inviting bandits from the mountains as well as principalia from the surrounding provinces into the fold.
This led to Aguinaldo taking over by 1897 and when Aguinaldo surrendered to the USA in 1901, a lot of bandits continued to fight on their own.
That the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_State_of_the_Visayas and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Negros plus Bohol had their own short insurgencies and self-proclaimed Republics that somewhat tentatively joined Aguinaldo (but might have separated EVEN if the 1898 Republic had won or had been left to itself) and the Sultanate of Sulu decided to not join Aguinaldo shows how little of a Philippines existed back then.
Bikol had Simeon Ola holding out against the USA until 1904 on the Rinconada side (towards the Visayan Sea) while the abaca planters on the Pacific side were probably happy that a US Navy ship anchored in Legazpi City made sure the supply of abaca for marine rope (and their income) remained constant. There was no real national consensus in practice and probably not even in theory.
I wonder if federalism would work in the Philippines. Not even LGUs understand subsidiarity, like for instance some think they can declare people “persona non grata”. What if a Federal State of Davao decides to let Chinese warships protect it?
Well, I guess a Bikol state would separate and Prime Minister Robredo would welcome the US Navy in Legazpi City in such a scenario.
The hegemony of the Javanese (with the Bataks mostly running the military from what I gather, and the Sumatrans settling everywhere due to transmigrasi similar to Visayans settling in Mindanao) is masked by Bahasa as a lingua franca having survived. Javanese speak Javanese even as Bahasa in Indonesia as opposed to Malaysia has strong Javanese influences in it.
Quezon did declare Tagalog as Filipino, but the Visayans effectively boycotted it and kept the English/Tagalog duality alive. Unlike Indonesia who never had any President who WAS NOT JAVANESE, the Philippines after Quezon had several Visayan Presidents: Osmena, Roxas, Garcia, Duterte as well as three Ilokanos: Quirino and Marcos Sr./Jr., four Kapampangans: Aquino mother and son as well as Macapagal father and daughter – and only two more Tagalogs, Magsaysay and Estrada.
And amusingly, the Filipino spoken in Manila is far from the old Tagalog of Bonifacio’s time, MLQ3 mentioned how from the 1990s onwards it was heavily influenced by Visayan migration. So as always in the Philippines, things take their own course.
Joe once described Philippine culture as “not damaged but fluid” and I kind of agree.
where that flow will take the Philippines is another question altogether.
I had heard a joke told before by a Atenista that the Revolution was just a Tagalog-Ilocano revolt, mainly confined to those regions. IIRC the only two regions that successfully gained true temporary independence were Zamboanga and Sulu, the former through military means and the latter through distance.
A federal system may work similarly to how the US, Canada, Germany and Australia work. There would be a system of two types of sovereign entities, a federal government and a state/provincial government, with different sovereign powers split between them. Mainly the state/provincial government would have power over its own economy and internal affairs, while the federal entity would have power over the area of national sovereignty and allocating pooled resources.
IMHO even within the Philippines, there is not much known about the closest Filipino cousins, the immediate neighbors in Malaysia and Indonesia. There may be much to learn observing both countries, which are culturally similar, in order to develop a more cohesive Philippine identity based on substance rather than the old hambogs of the Katipunan type nationalism.
The revolution was a Tagalog-Pampangan revolt based on the 8 rays of the sun in the flag, and aspired to be FOR the entire archipelago based on the three stars.
I doubt that Federal even in the German form would work, much less the American form where states can have very different own laws, imagine that mess in the Philippines. Maybe some kind of regional parliament to check on projects in the respective regions, a bit close to Italian regionalism.
The Philippines indeed barely knows its own cousins, and even within the archipelago knowledge of one another only increased recently. Between Luzonians after the war when many flocked to Manila, with different kinds of intermarriages for instance. More when national TV became accessible to most after electrification in the 1970s and more affordable TVs in the 1980s. Even more when Filipinos went abroad en masse. It is work in progress.
Even NOT calling the languages of the Philippines “dialects” anymore is relatively recent. UP Linguistics studying them seriously is a great thing, and I hope some history departments do more local history. Making sure wealth is spread more evenly might be more important now than federalism, I guess.
The rest is up to Filipinos to figure out, even as that won’t be easy. (this is the concise version of the long answer I originally posted BTW)
“(this is the concise version of the long answer I originally posted BTW)” – Irineo
Good and thoughtful answer. Thanks!
I literally only met some second degree cousins only on facebook.
IIRC the 8-rayed sun symbolized the 8 provinces that rebelled against Spanish rule: Batangas, Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac, and then-Morong (now Rizal). It’s a wonder the Philippines even stayed together territorially in present form; there is not enough credit given to the US for that.
American federalism is bottom-up in construction, with relatively few sovereign powers allocated to the central government and the majority of *inherent* sovereignty (unenumerated powers) is held by the states. The main power of the US federal government is the monopoly over the monetary system and pooled resources. But the US federal government can only give additional resources, it may not take away. An example of this is the topic of “Medicaid Expansion” where participating states that expanded public healthcare receive additional funds from the federal level for this purpose that pay a greater federal share of the federal-state split, while states who chose not to participate simply don’t get the funds but do not have their locally raised funds taken away.
Canadian federalism on the other hand allocates power the other way from the American system. Canadian provinces have numerous enumerated sovereign powers, while the Canadian federal government retains the residual, unenumerated powers.
Australian federalism is somewhat similar to the American system, but the Australian states are far more dependent on federal grants and disbursement of funds than in the US where individual states can become the 4th most powerful economy of the world (like my of state California).
A type of federalism that might work in the Philippines may be more close to the very devolved model of American federalism. A “Federal government of the Philippines” might focus on foreign relations, national defense, monetary policy, and charting a common national strategy. While Philippine provinces in a “federal Philippines” might focus on provincial development, basic services, and the provincial economy. Projects of national interest, like building a pan-Philippine transport network, would be taken cared of by the “federal government.” There would be a “national baseline” where every province is provided essential subsistence funds; the rest is up to the provinces. It seems silly for the national government to need to go into each province at very low levels and provide basic services, which is what happens now. There is nothing wrong with strongly centralized states which is done successfully elsewhere, but the Philippines seems to want to “have a bit of a bite of everything” but not commit to anything. Federalism is a cure though for finger-pointing. If the local economy sucks, it is the fault of the locals and their residents will know that no one is to blame but the locals officials they voted for. What I proposed here is not like what Duterte had proposed, which is essentially using the term “federalism” to push for more local control (to be corrupt) but in actuality wanting to continue receiving funds from the central state, but with less oversight.
Tagalogs and Pampangans. Maybe a few Ilocanos in Nueva Ecija which is half-Tagalog half-Ilocano, but not the Ilocano heartland of Ilocos Norte and Sur, not even La Union or Pangasinan which is part-Kapampangan part-Ilocano, or the vast areas Ilocanos migrated to in Spanish times like the Cagayan Valley. Antonio Luna was from Pangasinan but lived in Manila at that time. Many Ilocanos hated Aguinaldo after Luna was killed. Macabebes from Pampanga betrayed Aguinaldo eventually.
The different groups within Aguinaldo’s army were often basically either landlords turned warlords or bandit groups calling themselves revolutionaries. There were some Filipinos who had formerly served under Spain, and a few Spaniards who had switched sides. We know a daughter of a Filipino Colonel whose grandfather was a Spaniard from Granada who had joined Aguinaldo’s Army. Of course Rafael Crame who built the Constabulary was a Filipino militarily trained by Spain.
The troubles President Roxas had after Independence in 1946 (48 years later) with provincial warlords and private armies on one hand and the Hukbalahap on the other (many of the latter recruited from Sakdalistas, cult-like bandits whose antecendents had been the pulahanes of late Spanish times) show that indeed the consolidation of power into a formal system (House, administration, military) under US control made a difference. Imagine that in the early 1900s.
That version COULD possibly work. No police powers as local dynasties might start building private armies in some places. No separate laws as some might allow the death penalty for flimsy stuff as an excuse to kill those who defy dynasties while people might smoke pot legally in Baguio all over Kennon Road.
There still would be wacky stuff like the controversies about what places actually belong to Bangsamoro I read of but didn’t look at in detail. Or decades-long legal battles similar to Makati vs. Taguig, but without guns and goons that would be absurd but bearable. Some places would still try to declare people as “persona non grata” for insulting their political family, but if they can’t enforce it, it would stay comedy like today.
Nueva Ecija was actually originally Kapampangan before the British occupation of Manila (October 1762-April 1764), which older Kapampangans have a penchant to remind me.
In a proposed “Federal Philippines,” I think LGU authorities still need to have some policing powers to handle local crime and safety. In the current practice PNP station chiefs and officers in each LGU technically are from the national government, but effectively they are local anyway and susceptible to local corruption. There should be multiple layers of accountability, starting at the LGU rising to the provincial level, though with the national authority being the ultimate guarantor of accountability.
Certainly there can be national laws and provincial laws. There would be two ways to do this: 1.) Proscriptive federal law would be a baseline; provincial law can be stricter than this baseline. 2.) Likewise federal law may establish a base salary; provincial law may be more liberal and set a higher base salary. Powers which are held by the federal government would not be able to be taken by provinces, such as the central government having a monopoly on adjudicated punishments which may deprive one of life.
There are many LGUs that are quite happy with receiving their IRA funds, and are more happy now that the revenue-split has changed to the NTA after Mandanas-Garcia. IIRC the local allotment went from an average of 80/20 to 60/40. These LGUs, run by literal descendants of local datus, had no incentive to develop their local economies when receiving a 20% allotment, and definitely do not have an incentive when the allotment is 40%. I have seen these mayors live in huge mansions while their residents live in rotting houses built with random salvage because no one remembers how to construct a bahay kubo anymore. The mayor’s family controls the sentro, all the basic businesses, and owns the transport company that brings goods in and out. It is a big part of the dynasty problem. Probably a bigger problem then the more well-known dynasties that are more rich.
Yes, but the Philippines is culturally closer to Mississippi than Indonesia or Malaysia, LOL. The western lifestyle and values are profound here.
I guess it could be described as meeting cousins with similar roots who have been exposed to very different influences. The similarities and differences are interesting and lead to a broader understanding.
My one time in Malaysia in 1999 (technically several times as I flew in and out from Singapore to KL, a flight where so short you can’t even finish your coffee) had me for instance hearing Islamic Malaysians say that during Hari Raya Aidil Fitri (the end of Ramadan) they went to all friend’s houses and ate just a little of what was offered as of course everyone would insist that they eat. I thought sounds like fiesta..
..at a symposium in the Indonesian cultural center in Berlin, I noticed (have told this story already) that the body language of deference from the young people at the front desk reminded me of UP students or young Filipino office employees, except that they never scratched their heads. Indonesians especially Javanese are very hierarchic, their language reflects it far more than Tagalog does (and Visaya doesn’t at all IIRC)..
..my very first contact with Indonesians during an ASEAN-EC Ministerial Meeting in Düsseldorf, Germany (I was the typist for the communique, probably chosen because I am pretty fast on the keyboard and make few typos, though a very strict Singaporean Embassy lady made sure there were zero errors before each version was photocopied on a huge machine that even stapled the paper) had us comparing words and they told me Tagalog seemed similar to Javanese..
..recent Internet comments in the “SEAblings matter” (about popular music, long story) had Indonesians saying Tagalog reminds them of Ngoko (commoner’s, not aristocratic) Javanese. Well, I guess Teddy Boy Locsin would say again “we Filipinos are not to the manor born” and there is nothing wrong with that.
Excellent characterization.
Americans, today, are not a generous people to the extent their political choices speak for all of them. Cutting off US Aid and arresting kids and breaking laws are not acts of a generous people. If Americans were a generous people, there would be very few Republicans. Americans are a greedy people.
It is unfair to paint a whole nation with the actions of a leader. If that were the case the entire Philippines should be indicted for the actions of Marcos Sr., later of Duterte, and all those who came before and existed in between. The truth is the active electorate is the same percentage of the US population (about 60%) as it was when you were able to vote for the first time back when you turned 18. Since the 2000s elections have been won on razor thin margins in a handful of battleground states, further depressing voter apathy. In any case, in 20 years the US will still be the top country in the world, the richest in the world, but a renewed nation paid with a people who are starting to wake up again.
But when you say Americans are a generous people, you paint a picture that is untrue, from the standpoint of people in Africa who will die of preventable diseases because the funding for prevention was removed by American leaders. As Filipinos are painted badly because of the choices their parents made by voting for Marcos, senior, so must Americans bear the shame of Trump and Germans the shame of Hitler. If Americans are generous, they must prove it anew and repeatedly for years to overcome the stigma of American policies under Trump.
” If Americans are generous, they must prove it anew and repeatedly for years to overcome the stigma of American policies.” – JoeAm
Well said, JoeAm.
It does not take deep tabulation to realize that the US over the course of its short and imperfect history has done much more good for the world than bad. More than many European nations, who attempted to cling to their colonies and systems of exploitation, have done. I do not subscribe to these self-flagellating views of a certain portion of the left that do not pair with action, narratives that were seeded originally by Soviet agitprop for anyone who cares to dig a bit deeper. Rest assured, there are enough Americans who are still willing to actively fight for what is good, and more are waking up and joining day by day.
All that is true, but I don’t know how Americans (Republicans in the main) will overcome the apparent “emptiness” of purpose that leads them to believe they can find fulfillment in abandoning the Constitution and supporting cruelty. It’s a pandemic of value corruption. You see the long-view past and say “that’s who we really are, a generous people.” I see the recent past and say, no, you’ve changed, as a people. And toothpaste doesn’t go back in the tube so easily.
I think the difference between your perspective and that of Joey is you are now outside of the US and he lives there. A lot of Americans in Berlin (many of them are members of “Democrats abroad”) are applying for German passports nowadays as they can’t bear what America has become.
it was similar for a lot of exiled (even non-Jewish) Germans. The author Thomas Mann (who had lived in Munich and had hung out and written essays in a cafe opposite to another place where Hitler and his crowd hung out) couldn’t even stand Germany AFTER WW2 anymore and settled elsewhere.
I have these exchanges with kasambahay where I say how awful that Filipinos could just stay so cold when their neighbors were killed during tokhang and she tells me no, it wasn’t like that for good reasons, and Duterte doesn’t represent us while I think “well, maybe..”. Similar situation.
With every Filipino intellectual of the old guard dying in the past few years – especially familiar names – I feel a piece of the country I once knew dying.
It is indeed different to know history from books versus experiencing how it feels when it unfolds. I once watched a TV drama about French Protestant factory owners with my mother and I found it interesting how everyone turned way harsher when WW1 came around, and nothing stayed the same after that.
That makes good sense. Context is king. Accountability to me is the sum total of what “the people” get done through their elected representatives. So when I say Americans I mean their representatives’ actions. When Joey says Americans, he means himself and a lot of well-meaning citizens.
The voter turnout in US elections hasn’t changed much since the 1960s — it’s still about 65% due to voter suppression in Republican states. But what has changed since the time you moved to the Philippines is that the Republicans proceeded with their plan to capture the Supreme Court, the pivotal 2000 election happened (which under generous interpretation was an abrogation of due process, at worst a judicially stolen election), and the Republicans have created a massive media-disinformation ecosystem of evangelical churches and partisan-controlled media. The Republicans also were smart enough to focus on local and state offices to build up political power — states control elections after all. While Democrats stupidly only focus on the “top of the ticket” hoping for a saint to fix everything that has gone bad. The result is in states are “purple” it is impossible for a Democrat to win even in wave years.
It is in fact extremely hard to vote in Republican controlled states, like South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and so on where the Blacks and moderate Whites are a majority yet cannot gain power through elections. In traditionally more moderate states like Wisconsin, which is a “purple” state, one instance of Republican control was enough to remove Democrats from power for a decade despite the will of the people in that state. Wisconsin finally has a Democratic governor yet the state legislature is horribly gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, and surprise, the legislature are the ones who decide the gerrymander in the first place, cementing their power.
See the problem here is that Democrats and other pro-democracy loving Americans play by the rules, follow the law, and obey norms, while the other party does not respect any of those. Trump won both times by extremely slim margins, in a handful of states, which were heavily gerrymandered and vote suppressed by Republican local officials. So that’s why I disagree with you on this subject. A lot has changed since you left.
Across America after the 2016 and 2024 elections, Americans are dismayed but know not what to do when representatives no longer obey the will of the people and the other side breaks every manner of law and norm. There’s no way to prosecute law breakers since the law breakers are the lawmen. After Biden’s historic victory in 2020, which remains the highest number of votes for a single candidate in US history, Americans breathed a sigh of relief, thinking norms will fall back into place. But obviously that has not occurred when the other side continues to spit on what common truths are and indeed even what reality is.
Politically I am quite left, but not in the sense of the modern left. I believe in pragmatic solutions, which brings me into agreement with principled conservatives and principled libertarians. An American coalition of everyday Americans who may be of the center-left, center-right, and other principled peoples is what is rising today. Perhaps it is hard to see because the American media has completely been captured or cowed by MAGA. I find it ironic I need to read news about my own country in the Guardian or DW, but there is also the rise of independent media. And when one exits the Republican-controlled and Republican-cowed media ecosystem one finds that indeed many Americans are fighting back in many different ways. Trump could not cow Los Angeles, a huge metropolis. So he went to Chicago, where he had to tuck tail and leave. Then he attacked Minneapolis, a smaller than mid-sized Midwestern city and was forced out. He has resigned to doing performative “attacks” at the acquiescence of MAGA governors in MAGA states. All which is unknown unless one re-adjusts one’s news sources.
The default human response is to stay away from conflict and trouble. Americans are no different in this, like Filipinos who allow themselves to be abused by dynasties for decades because speaking out rocks the boat and makes life uncomfortable. But at every moment of lowness in US history common Americans have found a way to fight back and retake what is their inheritance. All signs point to a massive tsunami building that will in November this year swamp out the Republican Congress, and may even take over the Senate. All signs also point to Trump planning to unconstitutionally steal the election with the monopoly on state violence he now controls. And to that, I expect massive demonstrations. The power of government in democratic systems derive from the collective sovereignty of the people. And if that is not enough, well, there is 500 million firearms in the US and the belief that only redneck MAGA types own guns is false.
“If Filipinos misuse what has been taught, which was based on the most progressive best practices at that time, whose fault is it really?” – Nguyen
During the American period, I would say that blame for misuse of Pork Barrel stops with the US. That is the burden of being in charge. After the American period, the US can no longer be blamed. The US can perhaps be criticized for introducing the tool, but with sovereignty comes responsibility and ultimately blame for failures.
Going back to the spitting, litering, loitering post…it is not just discipline it is accountability, personal accountability. Sa karamihan ng pinoy basta may butas lulusot.
And I do not know how long it will be valud that we are a young democracy. Heck after ww2 many British Colonies still play the Commonwealth games like Cricket….non sequitur. After the Commonwealth came the Republic.
What you stated is just plain wrong and not historically factual. Even if history is removed, which it is not, those who cannot accept responsibility for their own actions and blame others as a default cannot change. Now obviously that is not the behavior of the majority of Filipinos, but the bad behavior of a few is often condoned because they are loud and it infects everyone else.
I would suggest to you first understand what pork barrel actually is, and not just in the Philippines context which uses the borrowed term “pork barrel” wrongly btw. Second I suggest you to look into which governing body introduced this “pork barrel” to the Philippines, and when. Hint: It was 1922 and by that time “Filipinization” was in full swing for 6 years. Then research the difference between bills passed in the American-led Commission, American-appointed Assembly with the bills passed in the Filipino-led, Filipino-elected Senate and House; the dividing year here is 1916.
Fwiw
In the absence of refrigeration, pork can be preserved by salting it in a barrel. The term pork barrel politics originated in American English,[4] and usually refers to spending intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes. In the popular 1863 story “The Children of the Public”, Edward Everett Hale used the term pork barrel as a homely metaphor for any form of public spending to the citizenry;[5] however, after the American Civil War, the term came to be used in a derogatory sense. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the modern sense of the term to 1910.[6] By the 1870s, references to “pork” were common in Congress, and the term was further popularized by a 1919 article by Chester Collins Maxey in the National Municipal Review, which reported on certain legislative acts known to members of Congress as “pork barrel bills”. He claimed that the phrase originated in a pre-Civil War practice of rationing salt pork to slaves, often resulting in a disorderly rush to grab a share.[7]
Examples
An early example of pork barrel politics in the United States was the Bonus Bill of 1817, which was introduced by Democratic-Republican John C. Calhoun to construct highways linking the Eastern and Southern United States to its Western frontier using the earnings bonus from the Second Bank of the United States. Calhoun argued for it using general welfare and post-roads clauses of the United States Constitution. Although he approved of the economic development goal, President James Madison vetoed the bill as unconstitutional.
Yes, exactly. Although even during the heyday of pork barrel in the old American politics which was a politics of patronage, there was never the degree of using pork barrel as a “slush fund” by another name like it is used in the Philippines. So my original point is that the Congress in 1922 may have adopted the term “pork barrel,” but the actual practice was distinctly a Filipino system of allocating power through resources.
Many borrowed words are of the evolved or mutated nature.
pilosopo means sophist not philosopher, ambisyoso means presumptous not ambitious, siguro means maybe not sure (even if sure in American English sometimes is close to maybe, or was that just what it meant to some Fil-Ams I dealt with?) and the craziest was Filipino boomers saying “you are fantastic” but meaning “pantastiko” as in someone who imagines things. And disente as used by Mar Roxas to mean decent means something different in street Tagalog, it has more of a connotation of someone who looks clean-cut – both Marcos Sr. and Don Vito Corleone could be seen as disente. While decent as misunderstood by some Filipinos could be just decent in terms of not using swear words and not having mistresses, not decent in the general sense of honesty that Mar Roxas meant. No wonder he lost.
As for “smart” the way it was used by some Pinoys in the 1990s to mean a person almost like a scammer but admired.. whew what a tower of Babel.
Eksaktly
Well thank you for unwinding the Babel.
Agree. It is the deep state warp in laws promoted even by President Aquino to secure the needed votes.
Money makes the world, and politics, go ‘round.
Certainly it would be self-defeating to withdraw funds as well, which the local people may desperately need for improving infrastructure. Perhaps an interim solution would be increased oversight — paired with increased prosecutions of wrongdoing. Including prosecutions against political backers who provide the monies for corrupt practices like vote buying and unsanctioned campaigning. Marcos Jr.’s initiative of the ICI is a good start. But more should be done across all areas that public funds touch.
“$8 trillion and more than 20 years of blood spent could not change countries when the *people do not want change.*” – Nguyen
>>MLQ declared “we can fix it.”
Two questions (from CV):
“The answer to both questions is: It is up to Filipinos to fix the problems of the Philippines, no one else.” – Nguyen
I explored the answer to my questions in the specific area of the eGovDH and eGovPX digitalization projects that our government has embarked on. These projects have the general goal of making interaction between residents and their government easier, more efficient, AND it is also a tool in the fight against graft and corruption. These are two major problems that have plagued our dear Third Republic from the beginning in 1946. One can even go back to the start of the Commonwealth in 1935 when we were practically in charge.
I explored whether the people have the WILL to make changes, or is it still in the “wishful thinking” stage which is so normal for too many of us.
>>Wishful thinking or will, that is the central tension in the specific area of digital transformation in the Philippines. Looking at the actions of the general public, it is a mix of both, shifting slowly from wishful thinking toward actual will.
Here is how to distinguish between the two based on current behaviors:
1. Where it is just “Wishful Thinking”
2. Where it is true “Will”
In summary, the public is moving from just wishing for a better system to demanding it through active participation, but the transition is hindered by frustration with the current limitations of the technology and lingering trust issues.<<