‘So why do we still have dynasties to this day, almost 40 years after EDSA?’
ONE of the hallmarks of the celebrations following the February 1986 “People Power Revolution” was a shared belief that the fall of the Marcoses meant an end to dynasties.
This was one of the major attacks on the Marcoses: I remember a photo of the family that was widely circulated. It showed the Marcos five dressed regally, the ladies adorned with sashes and brooches and tiara-like jewelry, while FM and FL sat on chairs made to look like thrones.
The anti-dynasty fever took a Constitutional turn when the 50 commissioners appointed by President Cory Aquino to write a new Constitution wrote that: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” (See Art II, Section 26).
What a triumph for democracy, yes?
So why do we still have dynasties to this day, almost 40 years after EDSA?
The answer lies in the “catch.” The Constitutional provision requires that “political dynasties” be “defined by law,” which means Congress acting to give life to the provision.
Yes, you can laugh out loud here.
But wait.
Remember that during the heady days after EDSA, President Cory was the darling of the world. Even US congressmen and Secretary of State George Schultz wore a Cory doll on his lapel when she addressed a joint session of the United States Congress that year. Long before other democracy icons like Aung San Suu Kyi even appeared on the horizon, it was Cory who served as the symbol of democracy triumphant.
Yet the Philippines couldn’t ban dynasties.
And this is where I sometimes snicker.
I would have expected our icon of democracy to go before the Philippine Congress and thump on the rostrum and demand – yes, demand – that the Philippine Congress immediately pass the enabling law that defined dynasties and would give life to Article II, Section 26. I would have expected her to tell the Congress assembled: “I shall marshall the power of the people to force your hand if you do not do my bidding.” And she would add “because our revolution would not be complete, in fact, would be betrayed, if we fail to take this singular step.”
But she didn’t. Neither did her son.
And so dynasties remain.
Because I don’t think our “democratic activists” (especially their allies among the political elite) ever really meant what they criticized the Marcoses for.
They just wanted the Marcoses out so one set of those darn dynasties could be replaced by another.
