Why dynasties endure
From the ravages of the flood control scams emerged certain surnames, names not too difficult to identify, given their long histories of influence and power. Some 38 years after the 1987 Constitution solemnly vowed (in Article II, Section 26), “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law,” Congress has yet to perform its duty.
BUT THE REFORM BLOC, BLOCKED FOR YEARS, has persistently insisted on action. Senate Bill No. 1548 (titled Kontra Dinastiya Act), filed by Sen. Risa Hontiveros, seeks to prohibit spouses and relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of any incumbent official from running for both national and local posts. Not to be outdone, the lone representative of Dinagat Islands and three Akbayan party-list representatives filed House Bill No. 5905.
Moreover, Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno urged President Marcos to certify the bill. Notably, Chel himself comes from a distinguished family: esteemed late Sen. and Secretary of Justice Jose W. Diokno (his father), former Sen. and Supreme Court Justice Ramon Diokno (grandfather), and former Gov. Ananias Diokno (great-grandfather).
Note, however, that their names are associated more with legacy than dynasty. Yet Chel was elected this year, as was his son Abe Diokno as a councilor in Taal, Batangas. Whether this becomes a bigger dynasty, only history will tell, though it seems unlikely.
In several past columns, I have shared my opinions on dynasties. Today, let me write on why dynasties endure based on two aspects: (1) human nature and (2) colonial culture. And next Monday, I will follow up on how to contain them.
DYNASTIES REFLECT DEEP-ROOTED PATTERNS of human behavior. In the distant past, leadership relied on kinship, trust, and resource coordination, giving familiar families survival advantages and stability. Over time, these familiarities formed institutions that concentrated power within families, reinforced by cultural norms, wealth transfer, and social networks. Today, innate biases like trust in familiar faces and nepotism interact with meritocratic ideals. Though not inevitable, these predispositions explain why familial leadership recurs.
This extends beyond government, infiltrating what we colloquially call “politics” or favoritism based on closeness or family ties in many organizations. Whether in the professions, business, media, academia, or even in some religious denominations, the same patterns emerge—power, influence, and privilege accumulate within families across generations.
Early exposure to family careers can educate and shape successors, for better or for worse. While some businesspersons could be accused of unmitigated greed, the conglomerates I know are, by and large, patriotic, honest, fair, and philanthropic.
EXTRACTIVE INSTITUTIONS ARE OFTEN LINKED TO DYNASTIES. “Why Nations Fail” by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson (a book omnipresent in my shelves) explains why power concentrates in the hands of a few elites who dominate and extract resources, wealth, and opportunities from the majority of the population. While inclusive institutions provide shared prosperity, most societies favor extractive ones. Why? Elites resist change to protect power rooted in colonial legacies.
Former Spanish colonies, like our country, inherited centralized governance, land inequality, and hybrid legal systems. British colonies, in contrast, often developed inclusive frameworks with common-law systems, education, and paths to democratization. The Canadian, Australian, and Indian histories show these democratic transformations from their colonial pasts.
The Philippines has a unique blend. Our various Constitutions, modeled after the United States, created presidential systems with checks, balances, basic rights, and democratic elections. Yet, centuries of Spanish rule imbedded religious traditions, family ties, and community practices that prioritize kinship and patronage. This cultural mix shapes decision-making: even in our democracy with elections meant for self-correction, political dynasties dominate.
RECOGNIZING THESE DYNASTIC NUANCES can help societies balance cultural stability with inclusive reforms. These nuances persist worldwide, from ancient monarchies to modern democracies. Indeed, our own political firmament is littered with many dynastic political stars, luminous and not-so-luminous.
For over three decades, we have awaited definition, though common sense dictates that first-degree relations (spouses, children, parents) constitute clear family ties. The antidynasty bills remain far from victory. Too many “Congs” and “Sens” have dynastic roots and have declined to define scope and penalties.
In my humble view, these nuances will endure, and anticorruption efforts will be eroded unless persistence by the blocs results in the enactment of the bills filed, the revision of the Constitution, and the outputs from the sacred rolls of the Supreme Court, where various petitions to define dynasty pend.
—————-
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com
