No matter what level in which Philippine elections occur, may it be at the national or the local level, we can always notice how it is filled with so much festive energy. Election seasons in the country, particularly the campaigns, are largely characterized by loud parades, programs, and performances, which are sometimes done by the candidates themselves. Given the joyful character and persona of the Filipino people, it is not uncommon that the concept of parties or pagdiriwang has been adapted by political candidates as a strategy in gaining voter support. This, however, is a humorous and literal conception of the so-called party politics. In reality, party politics refers to the dynamics within and between political parties–the party system, and not to some kind of festive campaign strategy.
Before anything else, it must first be established that political parties are organizations that compete for power by participating in elections. Hence, the party system involves the interaction of these political parties. Correspondingly, the strength of political parties determines the strength of the party system; if political parties are weak, so is the party system.
There are four types of party systems: One-party, Two-party, Dominant-party, and Multi-party systems. Throughout its history, the Philippines has experienced major changes in its party system; it moved from a two-party system, to a one-party system, and then to a multi-party system. After the 1946 Philippine independence, two major parties dominated the post-war Philippine political arena: the Nacionalista Party and the Liberal Party. This two-party system ended during Martial Law, where a one-party dictatorship in turn was established. When democracy was restored in 1986, a multi-party system emerged. Regardless of these historical developments, the weak nature of political parties and the party system persisted and remained a defining characteristic of Philippine party politics. From these points, two questions emerge: first, why has there been a proliferation of political parties after Martial Law?; Second, what contributed to the weakness of these political parties in the first place?
For the first question, it is largely attributed to Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s actions during Martial Law where he banned existing parties and created his own—the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan or KBL. As the newly-established KBL accumulated candidates and support, the traditional Nacionalista and Liberal parties weakened. When Martial Law ended, the KBL fell apart and its members formed factions. Despite the KBL's demise, the two-party system was not reinstated because the traditional parties were unable to regain their former strength. Hence, a fragmented multi-party system instead emerged.
Whatever form that the Philippine party system takes into, it has always been weak in a sense that party loyalty is lacking. Members of a political party can easily switch parties; this practice is called turncoatism. A pre-Martial Law example of this can be seen in the 1961 elections where 21 Nacionalista members from the House of Representatives joined the Liberal Party, which was also the party of the incumbent president at the time, Diosdado Macapagal. The practice of party switching from the opposition towards the president’s party continued even after Martial Law and is usually done to gain access to the resources and privileges that the president’s party enjoy.
Turncoatism indicates the lack of coherency within parties, as members are not bounded by common stances or ideology and can swing between different political parties depending on their interest. Essentially, this shows the candidate-centric nature of Philippine political parties because the particularistic interests of individual candidates are prioritized. Hence, there is weak commitment towards party-centric values. The lack of loyalty and coherency within parties caused by personalistic goals and interests undermines the political parties and the party system itself as crucial institutions of democracy. As Allen Hicken put it, “Parties function almost entirely as electoral vehicles for powerful individuals.” Thus, in the Philippines, party membership is merely a means to an end, that is, to win seats.
It has been established above that candidate-centric politics weakens the parties and the Philippine party system as a whole. However, the institutional design of our electoral system also bears weight to the problem. The country employs the so-called party-list system (PLS), through R.A. 7941 or the Party-List System Act. The PLS is a mechanism of electing representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional, and sectoral parties, or organizations or coalitions registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Parties, in this case, mean either a political party, sectoral party, or a coalition of parties. Section 3 of the Party-List System Act defines what is a political party, a sectoral party, a sectoral organization, and a coalition. The party-list system is a proportional representation system which means that the percentage of votes that the parties get shall proportionately correspond to the number of seats they shall win.
While the party-list system can be a very much attractive electoral innovation, especially in a diverse country like the Philippines, it still comes with various flaws. For example, the PLS enforces a 3-seat cap rule and this incentivizes parties to become smaller. The 3-seat cap enables parties to occupy a maximum of three (3) seats provided that they have accumulated at least 6% of the votes for partylists (2% = 1 seat). The problem manifests if the parties garnered votes beyond 6%; the additional votes they get will not be translated into more seats because there is a 3-seat cap. In other words, a party who has gotten 20% of the votes will be awarded with the same number of seats as the party who only got 6%. Consequently, larger parties, who typically also enjoy large vote shares, will be prompted to fragment themselves to form smaller parties to be able to occupy more seats and bypass the 3-seat cap.
Hence, there are more parties formed, but they are identical in nature since they originally belonged to a formerly large party. The proliferation of these identical parties narrows down the interests being lobbied at the House of Representatives, and they may drown out other more marginalized parties. Additionally, the 3-seat cap essentially violates the very principle of proportional representation since it limits the parties to occupy more seats regardless of their vote shares.
So, with all the information above, what do they imply about the Philippine party system? Our party system is in dire need of reforms. The Philippine party system is weak because political parties lack ideological coherence, they are candidate-centric, and they are all inherently identical. Apart from these issues is the enabler institutional design that incentivizes party fragmentation. Hence, reforms must be enforced that would overturn the current situation of our party system. These reforms must incentivize parties to become larger and promote party-centric values such as ideological coherence and a significant move away from candidate-centric politics. Penalizing party defection or switching and abolishing the 3-seat ceiling are some ways of achieving this overturn.
While there are proposed changes in the Philippine political system, large-scale proposals such as the charter change (Cha-Cha) would not really solve the problem, especially since the PLS is just one aspect of the Philippine political system. Changing the overall political system without initially looking at the smaller problems would be a careless approach to solve its issues. Hence, the ideal response is to do part-by-part reforms to also minimize the unintended consequences which are otherwise further enforced by large-scale reforms such as the Cha-Cha. However, it is also important to recognize that part-by-part reforms, in this case, for the Philippine electoral system, would be an arduous task and could not be done in an instant.
Hence, with the problems of party weakness and identicality still persisting and the midterm elections already coming in a few months, it is up to the voters themselves on how to temporarily mitigate them. By developing strong support to highly representative political parties–those that would truly and genuinely represent their interests, voters can further initiate the diversification of interests being lobbied at the Congress. As such, party loyalty among the voters is an imperative step in strengthening not only the parties but also the party system as a whole.
It is clear that party politics has absolutely nothing to do with festive activities during election seasons. Yet, the Filipino style of party politics resembles a conventional pagdiriwang; it can be messy but it is also loud in a sense that it calls for wider engagement among the people. Whatever role they play in Philippine politics, political parties in themselves remain to be an essential feature of democracy. They are conduits of representation, which matters in the Philippines since it is a country of highly diverse cultures. The problem stems from the fact that parties and the party system are treated merely as vehicles for electoral success and not as legitimate and vital political institutions; it is high time to recognize them as the latter.
Comments