Solid South, Sandigan, and social democracy
If there were three monumental works that could perhaps best explain the fate of civilizations and the future of democracy, the following come to mind immediately: “Lineages of the Absolutist State” by historian Perry Anderson; “The Origins of Political Order” by political scientist Francis Fukuyama; and “The Dawn of Everything” by anthropologists David Graeber and David Wengrow. All these works are not only as accessible as the more “pop social science” volumes, such as “Why Nations Fail” (Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson) and “Sapiens” (Noah Harari), but, crucially, they also provide rigorous blueprints for a better political future.
The main thesis at the heart of both Anderson’s and Fukuyama’s works is this: genuine democracies emerge after the consolidation of a strong centralized state and, crucially, when the balance of power among competing social forces tilts in favor of the middle class and broader masses (against the oligarchy/monarchy). The rule of law—namely, strong and independent judiciaries capable of enforcing laws in a predictable and uniform manner—is less a product of democratic elections than robust state-building and the curbing of the arbitrary power of the ruling elite.
Throughout much of the developed world, the rule of law preceded the introduction of truly genuine democratic elections. In short, building an autonomous, capable, centralized state is sine qua non for political freedom. Meanwhile, Graeber and Wengrow provide robust evidence of egalitarian and inclusive polities throughout all civilizations from Asia to the Americas. From the Middle East to Mesoamerica, numerous societies produced, in both prehistoric and ancient times, various versions of “proto-democracy,” where wealth was distributed equitably, and individuals had a significant degree of political autonomy.
So, dear reader, what is the relevance of the aforementioned works for the Philippines? First of all, the long-term persistence of tribalistic politics in our country is a reflection of the fundamental weakness of our state institutions. Ours is a country of “weak state, weak society, and strong families,” whereby a few hundred political dynasties effectively control all important elected and appointment-based offices in the land. It’s interesting to note that among the top presidential contenders in 2028, all are either from an established political dynasty (Duterte/Aquino) or a new one (Tulfos).
Unless we build an autonomous, centralized, and capable modern state, the Philippines is primed for sedition, civil war, and secession at some point in the future. The rise of the “Solid South,” which is primarily composed of historically disenfranchised folks from the Mindanao and Visayas regions, is potentially a forewarning of future political upheaval, unless we transcend tribalistic-regionalistic politics. But history shows this could be achieved through shared civic culture and inclusive politics under the aegis of a capable national state.
Our democratic crisis, however, is also exacerbated by the maldevelopment of our judicial system, which never received deserved resources, support, or scrutiny in the past century. Unlike in more mature democracies, the president in the Philippines has almost direct say on who is appointed to the country’s highest court. At lower levels, underfunded courts and the broader penal system are overwhelmed by a deluge of cases, and, worse, intimidation tactics by dynasties and organized crime groups. More than half of the folks in Philippine prisons are pretrial detainees, meaning they were never convicted by any court, but instead stuck in judicial purgatory. The upshot is “hyper-impunity,” undermining public faith in our entire democratic political system.
Incredibly, the Sandiganbayan—the court in charge of holding erring public officials accountable—has been on an acquittal streak in the past year alone: from Marcos-era cronies to the Binays, Enrile, and Napoles, all sorts of shady characters mired in past corruption scandals have been successively acquitted by the Sandiganbayan. Nothing suspicious here!
And this brings me to the ultimate lesson from the aforementioned monumental works. Unless the liberal-progressive forces address the fundamental socioeconomic inequalities in society, and overhaul our broken justice system, they risk long-term electoral losses and political marginalization. The emergence and resilience of “Dutertismo,” which promises strong leadership and an ordered, prosperous society under a single brutal dynasty, only proves the desperation of voters for political order and justice. Thus, nothing short of a social-democratic movement, which tilts the balance of forces in favor of the middle class and masses, as well as preserves both political freedoms and ends extreme socioeconomic injustice, is necessary to arrest the slow-motion disintegration of the Philippine nation-state.
—————-
richard.heydarian@inquirer.net
