![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Over the past decade, and especially over the past few years, political corruption, fraud and violence in the Philippines have reached such alarming levels that many Filipinos have grown despondent, even cynical, about their country's political system. Exploring the suitability of the concepts of ‘predatory state’ and ‘patrimonial oligarchic state’ to the Philippines, I find that the regime rather than the state is the more appropriate unit of analysis. I argue that the predatory regime, controlled by a rapacious elite, that held sway during the years of the dictator Marcos, has made a comeback in the Philippines. Under the governments of President Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, traditional clientelism has given way to pervasive corruption, a systematic plunder of government resources and the rapid corrosion of public institutions into tools for predation. Instead of just being a throwback to the ‘old corruption’ of the Marcos era, however, the current predatory regime represents a ‘new corruption’ adapted to the ways of economic and political liberalization. While not as authoritarian as Marcos' regime, it has growing authoritarian tendencies: centralization of power in the executive; heightened repression; rigged elections; a much weakened rule of law; numerous political appointees in the bureaucracy; and increased influence of the military. A shift to naked authoritarianism, however, cannot be ruled out. As forces for democratic reform are much too weak, the predatory regime may be around for some time or it could give way, at best, to a more traditional clientelist electoral regime. Prospects for democratic consolidation in the Philippines in the near future appear bleak.
Acknowledgments
Nathan Gilbert Quimpo is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Tsukuba. His research and teaching interests include: democracy and development; conflict and peace studies; Southeast Asian politics; political corruption; civil society; and political and social movements.
Notes
1 Defined as a form of rule in which authority is imposed ‘from above’.
2 Defined as a political association that exercises sovereign power in a certain territory and maintains social order through a set of public institutions.
3 Michael Mann (1993: 18–19) defines regime as ‘an alliance of dominant ideological, economic, and military power actors, coordinated by the rulers of the state.’
4 Quezon served as president during the first seven years of the Commonwealth period (1935–46), a transition to independence that was interrupted by the Japanese occupation in 1942–45. He died in exile in 1944.
5 For a more elaborate discussion of clientelistic parties, see Gunther and Diamond (2001: Ch. 1).
6 In the CPI ratings, scores range from 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (highly clean).
7 For a tabulation of election-related violence in the Philippines from 1965 to 1998, see Linantud (1998: 301).
8 Estrada ran for various public posts under at least five different political parties. Arroyo, who became a senator in 1992 under the party Fight of Democratic Filipinos (LDP), established Partner of the Free Filipino (KAMPI) in 1997, ran for vice-president mainly under Lakas in 1998, and has been with Lakas and KAMPI simultaneously since then.
