Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-n7lw4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-05T20:55:09.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Party and Party System Institutionalization in the Philippines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2014

By
Allen Hicken
Edited by
Allen Hicken  and
Erik Martinez Kuhonta
Allen Hicken
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Allen Hicken
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Erik Martinez Kuhonta
Affiliation:
McGill University, Montréal
Get access

Summary

No country in Asia has a longer experience with democracy and democratic institutions than does the Philippines. The first national political party, Partido Federal, was founded in 1900. Direct local elections were held under U.S. colonial auspices in 1906 followed by national legislative elections in 1907. And yet, despite its long history the Philippine party system remains stubbornly under-institutionalized – regardless of how we choose to define and operationalize the concept. The chronic weaknesses of the party system are the source of a variety of ills, according to scholars, including an acute “democratic deficit,” a lack of political accountability, an under-provision of public goods, and disillusionment with democracy among Filipino citizens. In short, the party system is one of the biggest obstacles to democratic stability and good governance in the Philippines.

In this chapter, I examine characteristics and causal factors related to the Philippine party system. Using Mainwaring and Scully’s institutionalization framework as a point of departure, I first demonstrate that the Philippines is indeed under-institutionalized (inchoate). I note and discuss apparent changes in the degree of institutionalization over time. Finally, I present an explanation for why the party system has developed as it has in the Philippines, an explanation that also accounts for the changes we observe over time. Specifically, like Hutchroft and Rocomora (2003), I argue that the development of the Philippine party system is inextricably linked to the manner in which democracy unfolded in the Philippines. Early decisions by colonial administrators and Philippine elite had the unintended consequence of entrenching a particular style of political party that has dominated the Philippine polity ever since. I argue that when the question of institutional reform has arisen in the decades since, the Filipino elite has consistently and sometimes strategically opted for institutions that were inimical to greater party institutionalization.

Type
Chapter
Information
Party System Institutionalization in Asia
Democracies, Autocracies, and the Shadows of the Past
 , pp. 307 - 327
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Benedict. 1988. Cacique Democracy in the Philippines: Origins and Dreams. New Left Review 169: 3–33.Google Scholar
Banlaoi, Rommel C., and Carlos, Clarita R.. 1996. Political Parties in the Philippines: From 1900 to the Present. Makati: Konrad Adenauer Foundation.Google Scholar
Brownlee, Jason. 2008. Bound to Rule: Party Institutions and Regime Trajectories in Malaysia and the Philippines. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 8(1): 89–118.Google Scholar
Carlos, Clarita R. 1997. Dynamics of Political Parties in the Philippines. Makati: Konrad Adenauer Foundation.Google Scholar
Choi, Jungug. 2001. Philippine Democracies Old and New: Elections, Term Limits, and Party Systems. Asian Survey 41: 488–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). 1992. Report of the Commission on Elections to the President and Congress of the Republic of the Philippines on the Conduct of the Synchronized National and Local Elections of May 11, 1992. Manila: Commission on Elections.Google Scholar
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). 1995. Report of the Commission on Elections to His Excellency President Fidel V. Ramos and to Congress of the Republic of the Philippines on the Conduct of the National and Local Elections of May 8, 1992. Manila: Commission on Elections.Google Scholar
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). 1998. Election Results from the 1998 National and Local Elections. Data on Diskette. Manila: Commission on Elections.Google Scholar
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). 2001. Election Results from the 2001 National and Local Elections. .
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). 2004. Election Results from the 2004 National and Local Elections. .
de Castro, Isagani. 1992. Money and Moguls: Oiling the Campaign Machinery. In Kalaw-Tirol, Lornal and Colonel, Sheila S. (Eds.), 1992 & Beyond: Forces and Issues in Philippine Elections, pp. 36–78. Quezon City: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism and Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara, and Frantz, Erica. 2007. The Effect of Dictatorships on Party Systems in Latin America. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA.
Grossholtz, Jean. 1964. Politics in the Philippines: A Country Study. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Christof, Hassall, Graham, and Santos, Soliman M. 2001. Philippines. In Nohlen, Dieter et al. (Eds.), Elections in Asia and the Pacific: A Data Handbook. Volume II South East Asia, East, pp. 185–238. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawes, Gary. 1992. Marcos, His Cronies and the Philippines Failure to Develop. In McVey, Ruth (Ed.), Southeast Asian Capitalists, pp. 145–160. Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program.Google Scholar
Hicken, Allen. 2008a. The Politics of Economic Recovery in Thailand and the Philippines. In MacIntyre, Andrew, Pempel, T. J., and Ravenhill, John (Eds.), Crisis as Catalyst Asia’s Dynamic Political Economy, pp. 206–230. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hicken, Allen. 2008b. Political Engineering and Party Regulation in Southeast Asia. In Reilly, Benjamin et al. (Eds.), Political Parties in Conflict-Prone Societies: Regulation, Engineering and Democratic Development, pp. 69–94. New York: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Hicken, Allen. 2009. Building Party Systems in Developing Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicken, Allen. 2011. Political Parties and Party Systems in Southeast Asia. In Croissant, Aurel and Bunte, Marco (Eds.), The Crisis of Democratic Governance in Southeast Asia,pp. 151–170. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hicken, Allen, and Kuhonta, Erik. 2011. Reexamining Party Institutionalization through Asian Lenses. Comparative Political Studies 44(5): 572–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchcroft, Paul D. 1998. Booty Capitalism: The Politics of Banking in the Philippines. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchcroft, Paul D. 2000. Colonial Masters, National Politicos, and Provincial Lords: Central Authority and Local Autonomy in the American Philippines, 1900–1913. Journal of Asian Studies 59(2): 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchcroft, Paul, and Rocamora, Joel. 2003. Strong Demands and Weak Institutions: The Origins and Evolution of the Democratic Deficit in the Philippines. Journal of East Asian Studies 3(2): 259–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasuya, Yuko. 2001. Presidential Connection: Parties and Party Systems in the Philippines. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, Chicago, March 23–25.
Landé, Carl H. 1965. Leaders, Factions, and Parties. New Haven: Southeast Asian Studies, Yale University.Google Scholar
Landé, Carl H. 1996. Post-Marcos Politics: A Geographic and Statistical Analysis of the 1992 Philippine Elections. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven. 1998. Institutionalization and Peronism: The Concept, The Case and the Case for Unpacking the Concept. Party Politics 4(1): 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, Dapen. 1970. Philippine Parties and Politics: A Historical Study of National Experience in Democracy. San Francisco: The Gladstone Company.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend, Rogowski, Ronald, and Weaver, Kent. 1993. Separation of Powers and Cleavage Management. In Weaver, R. Kent and Rockman, Bert A. (Eds.), Do Institutions Matter: Government in the United States and Abroad, pp. 302–344. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Scully, Timothy. 1995. Introduction. In Mainwaring, Scott and Scully, Timothy (Eds.), Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America, pp. 1–36. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Torcal, Mariano. 2006. Party System Institutionalization and Party System Theory after the Third Wave of Democratization. In Katz, Richard S. and Crotty, William (Eds.), Handbook of Political Parties, pp. 204–227. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Zoco, Edurne. 2007. Historical Sequences and the Stabilization of Interparty Competition: Electoral Volatility in Old and New Democracies. Party Politics 13(2): 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montinola, Gabriella. 1999. Parties and Accountability in the Philippines. Journal of Democracy 10(1): 126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panebianco, Angelo. 1988. Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putzel, James. 1993. Democratisation and Clan Politics: The 1992 Philippine Elections. Mimeo.
Quezon, Manuel L. 1940. Addresses of His Excellency Manuel L. Quezon on the Theory of a Partyless Democracy. Manila: Bureau of Print.Google Scholar
Quimpo, Nathan Gilbert. 2005. Yellow Pad: Trapo Parties and Corruption. BusinessWorld, October 10, page S1/5. Accessed at .Google Scholar
Randall, Vicky, and Svasand, Lars,. 2002. Party Institutionalization in New Democracies. Party Politics 8(1): 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, David J., and Shugart, Matthew S.. 2010. Presidents, Parties, Prime Ministers: How the Separation of Powers Affects Party Organization and Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shefter, Martin. 1994. Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew Soberg. 1999. Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Provision of Public Goods in Less-Developed Countries. Constitutional Political Economy 10(1): 53–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sicat, Loreta M. 1973. The “Fair Hope of the Fatherland.”Philippine Journal of Public Administration 17 (October): 437.Google Scholar
Sidel, John T. 1996. Capital Coercion and Crime: Bossism in the Philippines. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Slater, Dan. 2003. Iron Cage in an Iron Fist: Authoritarian Institutions and the Personalization of Power in Malaysia. Comparative Politics 36(1): 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SWS. 2006. Attitudes towards Political Parties in the Philippines. A joint production of Social Weather Stations, Ateneo School of Government, with the Support of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Available from . Accessed May 8, 2008.
Tancangco, Luzviminda. 1992. The Anatomy of Electoral Fraud. Manila: MLAGM.Google Scholar
Ufen, Andreas. 2008. Political Party and Party System Institutionalization in Southeast Asia: Lessons for Democratic Consolidation in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. The Pacific Review 21(3): 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfling, Mary B. 1973. Political Institutionalization: Comparative Analyses of African Party Systems. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications,Google Scholar
Wurfel, David. 1988. Filipino Politics: Development and Decay. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
WVS (World Values Survey). 2001. .

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×