BY HERMAN M. LAGON
DISPUTES over political dynasties have raged since immemorial, sparking discussions about fairness, democracy, and leadership. The truth is more complex than that which is sometimes presented when all political families are criticized at once.
There are many good public officials and many folds more corrupt ones in politics, so there is plenty of room for passionate debate about the real effects of dynastic politics.
The political and economic fortunes are subject to the ebb and flow of dynasties, which have become an integral part of our society. It would be easy to look at them with cynicism; after all, they do tend to consolidate power, restrict democratic options, and maintain an elite grip on political issues. These families have the power to limit competition, creating an environment in which new ideas and innovations have a hard time taking hold.
But there is some good news. For some political families, the name “dynasty” has come to represent reliability, advancement, and widespread support.
Few cities and towns have experienced dynastic leadership that has resulted in good government, with creative projects and accommodating policies being the rule rather than the exception. These rare breeds have proven that political families may, under the guidance of capable and principled leaders, spur development and elevate community standards.
But we must not ignore the risks of dynastic governance. The quality of government declines when family ties take priority over competence and when power becomes overly concentrated in the hands of a small number of families.
Corruption and patronage politics might flourish unfettered under such an unjust and inefficient structure, endangering our democratic society as we know it.
What matters most is how these two aspects of a dynasty are balanced or not. For some families, holding public office is a birthright; for others, it is a means to an end, and they put their interests ahead of the public good. This contrast begs the critical question of how political dynasties have affected the country’s democracy and socioeconomic climate.
We must remember that the issue is not merely the presence of political dynasties but also the absence of rigorous oversight and controls that permit the maintenance of their less admirable characteristics.
Even if it bans political dynasties, the Constitution is only valid with enabling laws and its actual implementation. Unchecked dynasty politics can flourish in this legislative vacuum, which is terrible for political pluralism and equity./PN
