Written by James Stephen Balbuena
The reign of monarchies may be a thing of the past, but their impact on modern politics is undeniable—even in democratic societies, discussions of presidential succession and anointment remain central.
Power begets power; hence, presidential candidates would naturally seek the support of the most powerful individual in the land—the incumbent president. An incumbent president’s anointment of their successor is not only symbolic but strategic in any election, because in any electoral system worldwide, including and most especially in the Philippines, there is a factor called the incumbency advantage, which is when incumbents seldom get defeated in a reelection campaign because incumbents use the capacity of their office to maintain their power. In the case of the Philippines, however, wherein there are term limits, especially in the Presidency, incumbency advantage can still manifest through political dynasties, and by extension, through presidential anointment because familial ties and networks in the Philippines are loosely defined.
It is a common practice in the Philippine executive for the outgoing president to endorse a presidential candidate as their successor, but not everyone anointed gets elected. Corazon Aquino endorsed Fidel V. Ramos during the 1982 presidential elections, allowing him to win by a small margin, while Fidel V. Ramos supported Jose de Venecia in the 1989 presidential elections but the latter still lost to Erap Estrada. On the contrary, Benigno Aquino III’s endorsement of Mar Roxas for the 2016 presidential elections failed, while Rodrigo Duterte’s endorsement, albeit mild, enabled Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s return to Malacañang.
Art by Neil Roman
Midas’ Touch or Kiss of Death?
For the 1992 presidential elections, former President Corazon Aquino endorsed Fidel V. Ramos, stating that Ramos “will fearlessly pursue the vision of this democratic society that our people have fought for. This endorsement proved to be beneficial for Ramos, given that the 1992 elections were one of the most competitive in the Philippines, with Ramos winning with the smallest plurality of votes in Philippine electoral history. Ramos’ victory can be attributed to a combination of factors, but primarily to the “Cory factor” due to her identity and legacy as the “Mother of the People Power Revolution,” which has been effective due to Ramos’ credentials and affiliation with the Aquino administration during the People Power Revolution as one of the coup's leaders and as Aquino’s Secretary for National Defense. Still, the small margin can also be explained by Ramos’ lack of personal political machinery, and the strength of the rest of the presidential contenders, including Former Secretary of Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Former First Lady Imelda Marcos, and Speaker of the House of Representatives Ramon Mitra Jr.
There have also been instances where anointed successors failed to secure the presidency, with a prime example of that being the 2016 presidential elections, where former President Benigno Aquino III’s endorsement of Mar Roxas did not translate into electoral success. In this case, political machinery was not the issue given that during this time, the Liberal Party won the most in senate elections, gaining 6 seats, while clinching 115 congressional seats and 39 gubernatorial seats in the local elections. Therefore, the issue was the erosion of the public’s trust in the Aquino administration, in which Roxas was the figurehead during the elections. The erosion of public trust can be attributed to the administration's slow response to Typhoon Yolanda and the Mamasapano tragedy. Furthermore, Roxas maintained what was perceived by the public as a “moralist, elitist, and out-of-touch “Daang Matuwid” campaign” that struggled to resonate with the common people, in comparison with the populist approach of his main competitor, Rodrigo Duterte, who directly repudiated of the failures of the Aquino administration boosting his resonance with the public.
The cases of Fidel Ramos and Mar Roxas have proved how the influence brought by the incumbent president’s anointment can be crucial in an electoral race—it can either clinch a close win or seal your electoral defeat.
Should the Anointed become the Elected?
In examining the phenomenon of presidential anointment in the Philippines, a critical question arises: should the anointed necessarily become the elected? While the anointment by an incumbent can be seen as a practical move for political continuity and development, as it often ensures continuity of policies and a stable transition of power, the democratic value of anointment warrants scrutiny. It can be ultimately argued, therefore, that the anointed leaders should not be considered as the default choice because it not only perpetuates the dynasties and patronage but inherently undermines democracy.
According to the report by Freedom House in 2023, the Philippines has been experiencing autocratization since 2016, and this is concurrent with the rise of leaders with autocratic tendencies who aid each other in their rise to power—Rodrigo Duterte, Sara Duterte, and Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Therefore, this shows that the anointment by an incumbent president, as well as its success, disproportionately influence voter choice and skew the electoral playing field, turning an election from a democratic process wherein voters play a significant role in decision-making to a mere formality of endorsing the incumbent's choice. When new leaders are merely extensions of their predecessors, there is a reduced incentive for innovation, reform, and liberalization—all of which are essential to democracy.
While the endorsement of a candidate by a popular incumbent might seem like a viable pathway to continuity and stability, it often comes at the expense of democratic quality and the devolution of political systems. For a democracy to flourish, elections must remain a platform for genuine competition and choice, free from the disproportionate influence of incumbents. The electorate must be empowered to make decisions based on a broad spectrum of options and diverse viewpoints, ensuring that the elected truly represents the people’s will rather than being a product of political anointment.
Monarchies might be a thing of the past, but their backward culture of anointment and succession still plague the modern democratic society. In the question of what makes the anointed the elected, there should only be one answer—the people’s will.
Comments