Institutionalizing Oligarchy in the Philippines

by Paola G. Ceriola

Philippine institutions have a long-standing history of being ruled by

oligarchs, individuals who control and defend large amounts of material resources

to increase personal wealth and to move up to a higher social status (Winters,

2011). These oligarchs fill in the role of office-bearers (Harre, 1979) in institutions

ranging from private entities to the Philippine bureaucratic system of government.

The writings of Karl Marx (1932) and Max Weber (1958) explain how

oligarchies have controlled Philippine society by describing the role of labor and the

different modes of production in institutionalizing these oligarchies. However, they

differ in terms of describing the foundations of social stratification in societies. For

Marx, what separates the individual from the communal interests of the society are

division of labor and private property. On the other hand, Weber recognizes the

roles of economically determined power, legal order, political power, and social

honor as mechanisms in creating classes, status groups, and parties.

Weber describes the stratification of status as a “monopolization of ideal and

material goods or opportunities, in a manner we have come to know as typical.”

People who hold high status conserve a certain kind of lifestyle born out of their

privileges and resources.

In a comparative study by Erik Martinez Kuhonta (2011), he analyzed the

state of equitable development of two Southeast Asian countries: the Philippines

and Vietnam. Both are newly industrializing countries and both have the largest

population size second to Indonesia. According to him, the reason why the

Philippines cannot move forward with its development agenda is because oligarchs

control Philippine political development. Vietnam, on the other hand, was able to

institutionalize their development agenda through the Vietnamese Communist

Party (VCP).

In the Philippines, a few oligarchs hold both status and material wealth,

which allow them to dictate their agenda in lieu of public interests. By far, the most

distinctive concept of Weber’s writings is the concept of honor. For Weber, status

can be obtained through honor, which does not only require property but also a

specific “style of life”. Those who hold honor and has higher status in society use

these to forward their personal agenda more than public interest, which explains

why oligarchs continue to breed a culture of personalism in Philippine politics.

According to Kuhonta, colonialism hindered the establishment of the

country’s bureaucratic core as the colonials vested political power and material

property on to provincial oligarchs. On the other hand, Vietnam’s VCP was an

effective institutional foundation in the country’s development. This explains why

the Philippines did not have a firm foundation to cultivate institutional continuity

while Vietnam was able to focus and direct the country’s policy agenda.

As long as oligarchs continue to hold power and control Philippine society,

the country’s development agenda will always be put on hold to accommodate their

personal interests. In the words of Marx, this ruling class will continue to

manipulate productive forces, while this is what Weber describes as “status

privileges.”

References:

Harre, Romm. Social Being. Oxford: Blackwell. 1979.

Kuhonta, Erik. The Institutional Imperative. Standford University Press: Stanford. 2011.

Marx, Karl. The German Ideology. Marx and Engels Reader. 2nd ed. Robert C. Tucker, ed. Princeton University: New York and London. 1978

Weber, Max. Class, Status, and Party. Essays in Sociology. Oxford University Press: New York. 1958

Winters, Jeffrey. Oligarchy. Cambridge University Press: London. 2011.