by Dr. Nicole Curato
The 2013 midterm election is a tightly contested race, particularly for the Senate. Of the thirty three senatorial candidates, sixteen are now considered to have a statistical chance of winning.
One of the widely shared interpretations of such a dynamic relates to the issue of political dynasties. Since the filing of certificates of candidacy last October, public discourse has focused on the seemingly disproportionate advantage of candidates that have immediate relatives currently sitting in national posts. The traditional election combination of guns, goons and gold has been reformulated to, as one candidate puts it, “pera, patalastas at political clans.”
I have written several pieces on the subject and expressed deep concern over this trend.
A broader view of this year’s cohort of senatorial bets, however, can better contextualize the politics of privilege in our electoral democracy. Closely related to kinship ties are other characteristics of today’s democratic space.
UP’s Halalan Team* generated a profile of senatorial candidates, which provides an indication of the patterns of inclusion and exclusion in this electoral race:
First, our electoral politics remains to be masculine space. Only eight, or a quarter of this year’s senatorial candidates are women – Nancy Binay, Tingting Cojuangco, Risa Hontiveros, Loren Legarda, Jamby Madrigal, Mitos Magsaysay, Grace Poe and Cynthia Villar.
Several studies have also observed that while Filipinas have played prominent roles in politics, their political capital is usually built on their relationship with a politically well-connected father or spouse. Binay, Cojuangco, Magsaysay, Villar and, to a certain extent, Poe fall under this category.
One can carefully make a claim that the election of these candidates challenges the gains of incumbent female senators. While Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Loren Legarda have successfully built their political careers without relying on a politically dominant male kin, the entry of female senators with political surnames reinforces the unfortunate pattern of women participating in politics as extensions of their male kin’s political careers.
Furthermore, the combination of dynastic and sexist politics deters ordinary Filipinas from having a fair shot at winning a national post.
Second, this year’s race is particularly interesting because of the seemingly good performance of younger candidates. This makes Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s appeal to Filipinos to vote young and reject septuagenarians rather timely.
The average age of senatorial candidates is 53 years old but there is a major difference between the average age of candidates that rank well in surveys (ranks 1-16) and those that do not (ranks 12-33). The average age of the former is 46.5 while the latter is 57.4.
This, however, is not to say that young candidates generally fare better. There is a wide gap between the survey rankings of candidates under forty. Aquino (35 years old) and Binay (39) are among the top ranked candidates while Belgica (34), Señeres (36), and Llasos (37) are among the lowest ranked.
Interestingly, it is Belgica and Señeres that have formal experience in elected public office.
Finally, senatorial candidates register a rather impressive educational background. Eighty per cent of candidates have advanced degrees (law, MA, MBA, PhD), making a postgraduate diploma the norm rather than the exception among candidates.
Most candidates are also from so-called “elite schools,” with 18 out of 33 candidates attending the University of the Philippines. This profile prompts reflection, whether citizens are witnessing the rise of meritocracy with the emergence of a highly educated political class or the consolidation of an elite democracy where only those that have access to exclusive educational institutions stand a chance at winning a national seat.
While there is undeniable merit in having a highly educated political class, it is equally important to be wary of its dangers in stifling our political imagination.
In the past decade, the global south has witnessed symbolic democratic victories where a former steelworker became President of Brazil, the world’s eighth largest economy, a bus driver took over the late Hugo Chavez’s presidency in Venezuela, and a coca farmer made history and became Bolivia’s first indigenous President.
There may be danger in romanticizing ground-breaking leaders but it is equally dangerous to put blind faith to highly educated elites.
It has been said that elections in the Philippines are simply proxies for intra-elite competition. Such characterization is not difficult to accept considering the data presented above.
However, to reduce Philippine politics to elite politics is to ignore the intense and vibrant democratic activity among citizens in NGOs, people’s organizations, issue-based coalitions and even social media.
Democracy, as Stephen Coleman points out, “is a creative project, the success of which depends upon a certain mode of sensibility” among its citizens who refuse to raise the white flag against elite democracy posing as meritocracy.
* BA Sociology students Pamela Combinido and Lorraine Soldevilla are the primary researchers on candidates’ profiles.
Dr. Nicole Curato is an Assistant Professor of Sociology from the University of the Philippines-Diliman. She was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the Australian National University and is the current Associate Editor of The Manila Review.
