Why there is no such thing as a ‘good’ political dynasty

RETIRED Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, instead of upholding the constitutional provision prohibiting political dynasties, seeks to remove the sting from it. For him, the challenge to Congress is not to enact legislation to ban political dynasties, but “to define and regulate dynasties so these can be used only for good, not for evil.” Political dynasties, he maintains, are “neutral” and “not evil per se, merely abused.” There are “good” and “bad” (or “corrupt”) political dynasties.

Many studies on political dynasties have shown the dynasties’ harmful effects on democracy, such as concentrating power in a few and promoting patronage politics. But now that the retired chief justice has tackled the issue in terms of “good” and “evil,” it is time to delve into the ethical issues.

Political dynasties fail in terms of the ethical principles of fairness and equality. Political science literature frames political dynasties as a form of political inequality. In a truly fair system, leadership is based on competence, integrity, and vision. Political dynasties replace these with a bloodline. Elections are determined, as Karylle Castro puts it, “not by platforms or capabilities, but by name, wealth, and political machinery.”

Because of competing loyalties, political dynasties often transgress the norms of objectivity and impartiality. Politicians constantly face the prospect of conflict of interest: public office vs. private interest. In a country where political patronage and rent-seeking are rife, an individual politician already faces considerable pressures. For a dynast, the pressures mount manifold—for a relative to be appointed to a key post, for state resources to be used for family campaigns, and so on. Conflicts of interest are embedded into governance, and neutral rules are displaced by personal loyalty.

With political dynasties, the ethical principle of accountability is eroded. When a dynastic family controls multiple public offices, impartial oversight, investigation, and prosecution of misdeeds become more difficult. Entrenched dynasties can leverage their influence to shield family members from justice, even in cases of serious corruption or violence. Worse, when dynastic families forge alliances, checks and balances are rendered virtually inutile.

With so many dynasts being implicated, indicted, or convicted in scams and nefarious transactions, political dynasties are now very much associated with corruption. In scandal after scandal, the same names or surnames appear.

The moral decay does not just reside in the corrupt politician. It spreads and contaminates the entire clan. Through the myriad corruption scandals that have broken out, when was the last time a whistleblower or tale-teller came forward from within a dynastic family?

The clan members know, or they can find out for themselves. But they lack the guts and moral fiber. They choose silence over truth. In times of scandal, they close ranks. They have to protect the brand name because it is a key factor to the family’s wealth, power, prestige, and privilege.

The clan gives a tainted dynast full backing when he tries to “rehabilitate” and relegitimize himself by running again for public office. If the dynast is much too tarnished, another family member runs instead—to ensure the dynasty’s continuity. After skipping an election, the tainted dynast attempts a comeback.

There is no such thing as a “good” political dynasty. Political dynasties are evil. By their very nature, they negate the ethical and democratic principles of fairness and equality, and are anathema to ethics and democracy. Moreover, they often violate such normative principles as integrity, transparency, accountability, and impartiality.

There are certainly some good politicians within political dynasties, but they are the exceptions. They, too, want an end to the iniquities of political dynasties.

Nathan Gilbert Quimpo,
ngquimpo@gmail.com