THE HOT topic these days is political dynasties. And pundits are picking on poor Manny Pacquiao for fielding his wife Jinkee as candidate for vice-governor of Sarangani. Frankly, we should be thankful his children are not yet old enough to run for public office, like the Marcoses, Arroyos, Aquinos, Petillas, Ejercitos, Binays, Jalosjoses, Cayetanos, etc., etc., etc.
Pacquiao?s name, by coincidence, suggests a harsh reality, not just in Philippine politics but in business and in Philippine society as a whole. Long before he adopted the nom de guerre, “Pacman,” the term was already being used to describe someone with a penchant for gobbling up everything in sight. “Pakyaw” also happens to be the vernacular term for “buying wholesale.” And we all know about Manny being spelled “Money.”
“Money Pakyaw” says it all. In politics and in business, money equals power, and vice-versa. And both translate into the ability to pakyaw. To consolidate. Monopolize. Dominate and control.
That is the Pakyaw Principle — applied in the US by Google, Microsoft, the Koch Brothers and other corporate emperors and empires, and, in the Philippines, by the Tans, Sys, Gokongweis, Concepcions, Ayalas, Lopezes and the Pangilinan group, to mention the most visible.
In business and industry, where the rule is survival of the fittest, the Pakyaw Principle is often an imperative. As in the Pacman game, you may have to gobble up competition before it devours you.
What about politics? Political dynasties aren?t necessarily bad. Nobody ever complained about the Kennedys — JFK, Bobby, Ted and several congressmen and assorted public officials in the family — except their political opponents. And there?s the Bush clan, described by a biographer as “the most successful political dynasty in American history,” producing two US senators, one Supreme Court Justice, two governors and two presidents.
In the Philippines, it wasn?t such a big deal having generations of Laurels and Osme?as in the Senate and in Congress. And after President Ramon Magsaysay, no one complained that his brother Genaro and his son Jun Magsaysay also became senators.
Not surprisingly, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, whose wife, Laarni is mayor of Taguig, and whose sister, Pia, is also a senator, as was their late father, Rene Cayetano, has argued that there?s “nothing wrong” with having family members holding political positions. According to him, what?s wrong is when they are “corrupt.”
Cayetano is right, of course. But, as Hamlet declared, “There?s the rub!” The fact is that power is the essence of politics. Having more family members in political office means having more power. And concentrating so much power in one clan is a formula for abuse and corruption.
Everyone has a right to aspire for public office. And, conceptually, the more members of a clan who want to become public servants, the better for the country. But as the historian and moralist, Lord Acton, put it, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Granting that the Cayetanos are exceptions, finding politicians imbued with more virtues than larcenous intent is like picking the winning combination in the lottery. When they do emerge — like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore — they could end up taking the attitude of the elitist: that not every Lee or Kwan or Yew is born with the same ideal mix of qualities. So why take a chance? Why not anoint the offspring of the Chosen One?
Thus, it is no accident that the new leader of Singapore is Lee Kwan Yew?s eldest son, Lee Hsien Loong. Before becoming Prime Minister, the son was literally groomed for leadership, serving in the military, becoming brigadier general and then becoming Minister of Trade and Industry, Minister of Finance and then Deputy Prime Minister to his father?s immediate successor, Goh Chok Tong.
Aside from the obsessive desire for power and wealth, it is this elitist attitude, this notion that not everyone is qualified to lead that spawns dynasties.
In justifying political dynasties, Cayetano is either being disingenuous or is utterly na?ve.
But just as disingenuous or na?ve were the framers of the 1987 Constitution, when they included, in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the provision (Section 26) that states, “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
It?s an oxymoron. Guaranteeing “equal access to opportunities for public service” logically applies to everyone, including members of the families of politicians. The provision leaves it up to the Legislature to define what is to be prohibited. It?s a grand cop-out. A washing of hands, as in “Bahala na kayong magkagulo!” Surely the venerable framers knew that they were foisting a provision that Congress would conveniently find difficult to “define.”
Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who is supposed to be an expert on the Constitution, has filed Senate Bill 2649, “The Anti-Political Dynasty Act,” but it refers to provincial politics and makes no reference to senators like her. At any rate, the Senate has already been forewarned by the House that an anti-dynasty bill is as good as DOA.
Some well-meaning folks are talking about invoking Sec. 32 of the Constitution which reads, “The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum? whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part hereof passed by the Congress?.” They are also citing RA 6735, the Initiative or Referendum Act of 1989, to support their planned action.
But, assuming that our legislators are finally forced to sharpen their pencils, attempt to “define political dynasties” and finally agree to keep “spouses” of elective officials, and “relatives within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity” from running for national or local office, will our country be finally assured of honest, competent and efficient public servants who will consider public office as a “sacred trust?”
No. The result will be a mix of good and bad, jewels and dregs, heroes and heels, patriots and dummies. And the dummies will be funded by — you guessed it — the people in power.
The blunt fact is that, while people protest the idea of political dynasties and while we insist that all men are created equal, some are born and built more equal than others. And not everyone is capable of applying the Pakyaw Principle.
Even those gifted with unbelievable luck don?t necessarily have all the qualities required for political survival. Take Noli de Castro, ex-vice-president and ex-future president. What do you think would Jojo Binay have done in his place? Well, we?re actually seeing it happen now.
I recall one chance conversation I had with then First Lady Imelda Marcos, who happens to be a province-mate. I complained to her about the lack of ethics and the incompetence of the mayor of my mother?s hometown.
“So why don?t you run for mayor and replace him?” she said.
“I?m afraid I don?t have a talent for politics,” was my reply.
“Well, then, stop complaining,” was her quick putdown. “It?s people like you who allow the unethical and the incompetent to run for public office.”
