‘Bagong baylan’: The Filipino model of charismatic leadership
The success and direction of an organization are determined by the kind of leadership the organization has. The development or cessation of social institutions, such as family, government, economy, school, church, and mass media, depends significantly on the mandates of a leader. The leader becomes legitimate as long as the people recognize his/her power to lead.
Oftentimes, it requires influence and persuasion in order for it to work. Leadership as an authority is relative to the environment, atmosphere, and culture of the organization. Furthermore, not all could possess the authority to become a policymaker, and so not all could be a leader or public administrator.
Traditional authority is placed in the hands of the king or monarch, mostly in absolute monarchical states, where the power to rule is believed to emanate from divine providence.
This is now seldom practiced as absolute monarchial systems are limited and have been replaced by parliamentary setups. Meanwhile, legal-rational authority is constitution-mandated, which is handed either to those popularly or nonpopularly elected representatives. This is usually observed among post-modern societies such as the United States and the Philippines, where the will of the people reflected in the constitution is recognized. On the other hand, charismatic authority is acknowledged among those representatives who are nontrustees. They are those in authority who rule based on their extraordinary influence out of their lived ideology.
Among these authorities, it is uncertain and inconclusive to identify the best or the worst. It depends on the organizational culture that encompasses the structure, operation, environment, and atmosphere. Certainly, it is justifiable to adopt any leadership style as long as public administration delivers public service.
In the social stratum of the precolonial Philippines, a datu, sultan, or raja served as an absolute ruler with a spiritual leader, more popularly known for the Visayans as “baylan” or babaylan, “catalonan” for Tagalog societies.
When the Hispanization began in the early 14th century, the role of babaylans evolved. Slowly, babaylans were replaced by the clergy of the Western-originated religions. The babaylan and their practices may no longer be observed, but the culture of their leadership is still performed by today’s “bagong baylan” Scholars termed this charismatic leadership.
Meanwhile, in the Philippines, where separation of Church and State is often symbolic, leadership becomes moral and political. Historically, religious charismatic organizations have intervened in political affairs, such as endorsing candidates in elections, because even religious institutions implicitly endorse candidates. Interestingly, the span of influence that these charismatic leaders now possess goes beyond political endorsements. In the present day, they even influence public policymaking, which is directly political. This obvious influence silences the separation of Church and State. This is shown in several events in the country where the Church’s charismatic leaders directly interfered in political affairs, such as the two People Power Revolutions that ousted two presidents: Ferdinand Marcos Sr. (1986) and Joseph Estrada (2001).
The bagong baylan leadership is a unique Filipino way of leadership, as it is culturally rooted in the once unadulterated precolonial Philippines. It must be emphasized that it was never a battle of ideologies, an issue of spiritual or secular dominance, but of social welfare through public service. It is not surprising to see a metamorphosed baylan in an elective or delegate position, uniting and directing people to work for the achievement of a common set of goals and objectives.
DR. ERIC DS. EBRO,
ebroeric7@gmail.com
For letters to the editor and contributed articles, email to opinion@inquirer.net
