One of my favourite points of discussion in the lead up to election years is the idea of machine politics. To be-labor a talking point, we basically know that Philippine politics is not issue-based (kind of obvious). Instead, the popular concept is that it revolves around charismatic or personality-linked politics. However, some scholarly research, and a review of Philippine political and social history, offers a different interpretation of the nature of Philippine politics. In evaluating politicking, and especially ‘political machinery’, we discover a compelling argument that we remain deeply rooted in the concept patronage (i.e client-patron); or as we colloquially call it utang na loob.

Any cursory student of political theory will be familiar with the idea of patronage, as well as the connections that evolve out of the simple concept of client-patron ties. Certain historians (such as Glenn May) have used this theory in an attempt to explain the diverse socio-economic nature of the Philippine Revolution. One of the hallmarks of the Philippine revolution is the support from rural landed and urban educated elites, as well as the ‘masses’; despite attempts by ideologically confused historians to argue to the contrary. Much like Father John Schumacher, I believe that the driving forces behind the varied social nature of the Philippine Revolution is explained through different theories; among them patronage, kalayaan, the pasyon, and a few other theories. What is not in doubt though is that client-patron power relationships were in effect when it came to mobilising the war effort in the 19th century.

In some ways, this is a challenge to the current prevailing concept of politics in the Philippines: namely that it is charismatic and based on name recall. It is out of this wellspring of political theory that epal appears to be borne. However, when viewing Philippine politics through a prism of client-patron ties and utang na loob, a different more disconcerting picture emerges. Mark Thompson, in describing machine politics in the Philippines says:

This is the view that in competitive Philippine elections, votes have gone to the highest bidder. Machine politics is not ideological in character. Voters are mobilised by the distribution of patronage and pork barrel not by issue-oriented politics. Charisma plays only a very minor role in winning voter support. ‘Spoils’ and ‘corruption’ are intrinsically linked to such a form of politics as the machine deals ‘exclusively in particularistic, material rewards’ for achieving electoral success.

In addition, fraud, violence, and ‘bossism’ are common, making for the infamous triad of ‘goons, guns, and gold’ in Philippine politics.

Granted there are notable exceptions, such as Erap and his ability to connect. As an aside, there is something quite challenging about the outcome of the 2010 elections. The major spenders, Manny Villar in other words, barely had any traction in that election. It is very possible, and arguable, that automated elections disrupted the traditional model of electoral politics in the country. While some may point out that Aquino winning shows that name-recall is alive and well; arguably driven by the passing of his mother. On the other hand, I have seen the theory put forth that it is possible that spiritual client-patron links between ‘Tita Cory’ and many of the Filipinos was transferred to her son.

Tita Cory has long been viewed as the avatar of clean politics and venerated as a democratic icon in Philippine history. She has been broadly viewed as the One who gave democracy back to the country. Coupled with Ninoy Aquino as a democratic Christ-figure, the Aquino name has become imbued with a distinctive aura; one that deeply bound Tita Cory, and with her passing Noynoy Aquino, to almost every Filipino. In a sense, this also explains the continued support that Noynoy enjoys throughout the Philippine socio-political spectrum. He was voted in riding an unprecedented wave of trust and belief. By pursuing his mandate he is able to maintain those levels of trust, even if the benefits of his reforms may not be felt for a number of years. Noynoy was not elected solely on charisma, name-recall, issues, or on the strength of patronage based machine politics. Instead, his patronage ties to the Filipino people is rooted in democratic spirituality and driven by an inherited promise to reform the Philippines. That type of patronage engenders trust beyond what ‘goons, guns, and gold’ can acquire.

Moving away from political philosophy, ‘machinery’, or machine politics, is just another word for corrupt practices revolving around vote buying and voter intimidation. Thus, whenever we hear a politician declare that their ‘machinery’ will deliver votes, they are essentially admitting to utilising political parties to engage in electoral fraud to capture (through any means) votes. In terms of machinery and patronage one of the great electoral stories of the last few years is Jejomar Binay’s vice-presidential victory in 2010. During his many years as the mayor of Makati, Binay was able to create a network of sister-city agreements and LGU relationships rooted in city-level patronage. He was able to leverage those ties to gain a surprise win.

With regards to ‘epal’ this is where patronage in the modern age is incredibly subversive. If we go with the prevailing theory that politics in the Philippines is driven by name-recall and charisma, epal and its attendant issues is relatively easy to root out. It requires shifting the public discourse away from charisma-based politicking and focusing on issues. As well, it can be somewhat addressed by removing overt images of epal.

However, if we see epal as a visual manifestation of client-patron ties (i.e this is what I have given you and why you own me your vote) driven by machine politics the issue becomes much more complex and difficult to come to grips with. The fight is not only about visible examples of charismatic politics, it is about a far more insidious issue: Patronage and the subversion of utang na loob. Addressing that requires not only removing tarps and physical manifestations of corrupt practices, but social re-engineering and re-conditioning (education) designed to shift how voter’s view the actions of their political representatives. Additionally, machine politics and the prevailing methodologies employed by political parties has to be stamped out. A tall order.

We rightly argue for servant leadership among our political elite. But, just as importantly, we must also ensure that citizens view their elected leaders as servants and not men and women they should be beholden to for whatever scraps are thrown their way.