March 14, 2007 · Posted in: i Report Features

Building a political bloodline

THERE is no future or present without the past, and so in the latest piece for i Report‘s series on new political dynasties, we take a look back at some of the more common ways through which families have perpetuated themselves in power.

Danding Cojuangco is adept at building political alliances. [Lopez Museum] Actually, the piece comes from the PCIJ book, The Rulemakers: How the Wealthy and Well-born Dominate Congress, which came out in 2004 and is due for re-release anytime now. Just for this series, we’ve updated some details about the families mentioned in the article, which was written by Sheila S. Coronel.

But the “7 Ms of dynasty building” — money, machine, media and/or movies, marriage, murder and mayhem, myth, and mergers — remain the same. They are still the methods of choice even of the newer clans that like politics so much they have made it the family business.

Read on at pcij.org.

1 Response to Building a political bloodline

baycas

March 15th, 2007 at 5:26 am

frankly, it’s definitely not fantastic…

that a multitude of arroyos is in public service…but dynastic politics is really not that bad. it may be viewed as an inevitable (regardless whether the individual run for public office by his own choosing or just coaxed by people surrounding him). this is especially true as some family names that those individuals carry are already (1) established, (2) respected, and (3) charismatic.

the article politics of dynasty knows no boundaries enumerated the three causes (abovementioned) for the emergence of political dynasties and why they have stood the test of time:

First, access to the political system in most countries is costly in terms of money and only those who can afford the time, money, resources and have the requisite connections find an entry into what is often an exclusive if not closed club.

Political lineage buttressed by money helps facilitate that entry.

Bush, Gore, Tanaka, Macapagal-Arroyo fit the bill for what can be termed as politicians from Establishment families, with enough credentials due to a famous political surname to ensure a place on the political pedestal.

Then there are those who are respected for rendering services to their country during crucial periods, such as an independence struggle — hence, their legitimacy is unquestioned and widely accepted.

The Nehru family in India, Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia, Hafez al Assad in Syria, Kim Il-Sung are some examples from this genre.

Finally, there are those whose leadership is etched in the popular imagination, and for people to identify with such a charismatic leader comes almost automatically.

Bhutto, Bandranaike, Peron of Argentina, Ziaur Rahman and Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh, the Kennedys in the United States all were populists with charisma, which is then sometimes “transferred” to their scions and close relatives.

dynastic politics is here to stay as long as men made famous by their surnames are still running for public office and as long as people will elect them. try defining “political dynasty” to the letter then bar people with consanguinity and affinity to famous persons from joining the race (as what senator koko pimentel had said he will do)…

well, that will be the day when it will end…

how pragmatic?

—–

…Memory or name recall is also a building block for a political bloodline.

Building a political bloodline

1 Response to Building a political bloodline

Comment Form

Read More