Sunday, April 15, 2007 Sun.star Essay: Defining dynasty By Erma M. Cuizon Sun.star essay
WILL any definitive bill on anti-political dynasty ever be filed successfully in Congress to determine what it is exactly---head or tail?
The subject has never taken a front-stage billing than now when there might be a possibility of a sister and a brother team in one particular branch of government, as well as a father-and-son combo, and to top it all, there already is a mother-and-son duo, also a cousin team, even a father-in-law and son-in-law tandem. All they need in each family group is a theme song.
And yet to any lawmaker, to tackle a bill that would define “dynasty” is going to be a tough job ahead. Ask former senator Orly Mercado and Sen. Alfredo Lim who tried it.
The trouble, first of all, according to lawyers and some constitutionalists, is that an anti-dynasty law that would set more definitely the meaning of dynasty could restrict freedom of choice in a “republican” country where any thought that emanates from the people is acted on or expressed in the name of freedom.
The sovereignty rules in a democracy, some lawyers say. So what if a single branch of government or a single office is filled with leaders related to each other, as long as the people say so?
Mayor Jojo Binay, head of a political dynasty in Makati, reacted, according to a PCIJ article, saying, “Hindi ako naniniwala sa dynasty-dynasty na iyan.”
A tradition of dynasties could be traced to a country’s culture where in a small town, you’re related to the vice mayor, the school principal, the police chief. Even if you don’t take advantage of the situation, there are your grandparents who would take it as a breach in family ties if you don’t use your genealogy to advantage.
There was a time when, after an introduction of the name of a young one to the patriarch of a family, the old folks would ask, “How are you related to Noy Alan (the former mayor)? Your grandfather was the nephew of my greatgrandmother, do you know that? And he was the mayor right after the war.”
Or take situations in Asian politics---Lee Kwan Yew’s ruling family in Singapore, or the Kims in North Korea. Or take Sri Lanka. When Prime Minister Solomon Bandranaike died, his widow took over in 1960. Then the widow’s daughter won the presidency.
Or remember the Nehrus in India’s democracy? The family’s rule lasted for four generations---grandfather-daughter-grandson as prime ministers. Out of India’s 53 years of independence, 37 years of it has been in the Nehrus’ hold.
In the Declaration of Principles, Section 26, Article II, the Constitution says: “The state shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
But a definitive anti-dynasty law would violate freedom in a free country, they say.
So, how free is freedom?
Some say there’s freedom when you leave political dynasties to flourish. But there’s actually a problem about freedom in there, if you look hard enough. Some way somehow, the people are set aside in the process.
It’s a problem when you, as a leader, can’t make a decision for the people because you have the dynasty behind you to tell you what to say, when to say it, how to move and where, for your career. In this political dynasty, there is money and power at play.
But if the law is given birth, it would present both a problem and a challenge to fair lawmakers. Should the scope of the anti-dynasty bill be only in the three branches of government, or only in local governments? How far removed must a relation be from an incumbent?
Whoever else the author of the bill will be, someone must start it (or revive it) this year. Or year 9907 is okay with you?
