Alfred W. McCoy Group C

“…elite families can be seen as both object and subject of history, shaping and being shaped by the processes of change.” (p. 1)

She described the family as… “the strongest unit of society, demanding the deepest loyalties of the individual and coloring all social activity with its own set of demands" (p. 1)

“…the country’s elite were small, alien element –either rural feudal landholders or urban bourgeoisie.” (p. 4)

“Even a cursory survey of the country’s past indicates that in the Philippines, as in many Latin America settings, a weak state and powerful political oligarchies have combined to make a familial perspective on national history relevant.”(p. 7) The Philippines has a long history of strong families assuring social survival when the nation-state is weak.

After the independence in 1946, the Philippine central government effectively lost control over the countryside to regional politicians, some so powerful that they become known as warlords. Indeed, the state itself has recognized the primacy of the family in Philippine society.

In Philippine politics a family name is a valuable asset. Along with their land and capital, elite families, as Jeremy Beckett argues in this volume, are often thought to transmit their character and characteristics to younger generations. Although new leaders often emerge through elections, parties and voters seem to feel that a candidate with a “good name” has an advantage.

Article 216 of the Philippine Civil Code states that “The family is the basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects.” In article 219 the state admonishes its officials to respect the family’s primary responsibility for social welfare. “Mutual aid, both moral and material, shall be rendered among members of the same family. Judicial and administrative officials shall foster this mutual assistance.” (p. 7)

Article 2, section 12, the Philippine constitution of 1986: “The state recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.” (p. 7)

“The Filipino family… protects its members against all kinds of misfortunes since the good name of the family has to be protected. “

Robert Fox described the Philippines as an “anarchy of families.” Marcos era “There is little separation between the enterprise and the household, and it is often difficult to discern larger ‘segments of capital’ divided along coherent sectoral lines” (p. 8)

In Philippine politics a family is a valuable asset along with their land and capital, elite families (Jeremy Beckett). In elections, for parties and voters the candidate with a “good name” has an advantage Philippine political parties usually have acted as coalitions of powerful families.

Elite Filipino families often perform a broad range of economic, social, and political functions. Not only does Filipino culture articulate strong beliefs about the family in the abstract but individuals, as both leaders and followers, are influenced by kinship concerns in making political decisions.

Two key elements seem to have contributed most directly to the formation of powerful political families: a. the rise of “rents” as a significant share of the nation’s economy b. a simultaneous attenuation of central government control over the provinces Within the literature on political economy, the theory of “rent seeking” best explains the economic relations between the Filipino elite and the Philippine state.

Practice of bilateral descent is a central characteristic of Filipino kinship Bilateral kinship “produces overlapping, egocentric networks,” fostering societies “characterized by vagueness and ambiguity if not by disorder.” (Jurg Helbling)

“The Filipino type of kinship group is, therefore a generational cooperate group devoid of lineal or vertical continuity but expanded horizontally within each generation with ego as the central figure.”

In political terms, the word family does not simple mean household, as it is defined narrowly by demographers, nor does it mean kinship, as it used more broadly by ethnographers.

Under the Republic ( ), Philippine presidents used the state’s licensing powers as bargaining chips in their dealings with national and local elites, thereby creating benefices that favored the dominant political families. (page 12)

Most political families fused local power with national access. Indeed, many found that they could not compete effectively in Manila for rents unless they could deliver, by whatever means, a substantial bloc of votes to national politicians.