THE argument that ours is a democracy masking the true oligarchic state of government is indeed unmistakable—and is also deeply rooted in the practice of a patrimonial state which according to German sociologist and political economist Max Weber is where “practically everything depends explicitly upon personal considerations: connections, favors, privileges.” Clearly, every move and decision that the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of the government take in unison or even in seclusion at times serve private interests.
Dr. Paul Hutchcroft, whose researches focus on politics and government of Asia and the Pacific, has enumerated various practices such as “selective expropriation, creation of export monopolies, promotion of favored associates or “cronies,” cheap credit, tax incentives, state licenses, or monopoly privileges” that have been prevalent in policy-making which is argued to be determined based on “patrimonial connections over merit.”
One can attest that the patrimonial system is enormously ingrained in any level of the bureaucracy as what matters is not what you know, rather it is whom you know. This system has prohibited the formation of a government based on merit or capability, and even “the role of competitive examination becomes relatively marginal.” A distinct example cited is when Ferdinand Marcos nationalized the coconut industry in the 1970s and gave control of it to Eduardo Cojuangco as this is popularly regarded as the Coco Levy Fund Scam. Professor David Wurfel notes “political behavior is marked by dyadic bonds, not corporate action.”
The democracy that we think we enjoy in this country is only but a superficiality cloaking the reality of an oligarchic and patrimonial government in which vested interests are prioritized over the interests of the masses and the country as a whole. It is a political system highly characterized by "utang na loob" and political favors in exchange for electoral support to place someone into a political seat. The appalling extent to which oligarchy and patrimony have bolstered the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity. Indisputably, the rich get richer and the poor even becomes poorer.
Finally, our Constitution provides that “the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” The Congress, as it is mostly made up of members who belong to political dynasties, are presumed the responsibility to define the term. It is only but logical why the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill has not pushed through because the same people who are tasked to enact the law are the same people who do not heed what is stated in the Constitution. Without a law prohibiting political dynasties, everything else will be futile and hopeless.