|
Philippines A Collaborative Philippine Leadership
The most important step in establishing a new political
system was the successful coaptation of the Filipino
elite--called the "policy of attraction." Wealthy and
conservative ilustrados, the self-described "oligarchy of
intelligence," had been from the outset reluctant
revolutionaries, suspicious of the Katipunan and willing to
negotiate with either Spain or the United States. Trinidad H.
Pardo de Tavera, a descendant of Spanish nobility, and Benito
Legarda, a rich landowner and capitalist, had quit Aguinaldo's
government in 1898 as a result of disagreements with Mabini.
Subsequently, they worked closely with the Schurman and Taft
commissions, advocating acceptance of United States rule.
In December 1900, de Tavera and Legarda established the
Federalista Party, advocating statehood for the islands. In the
following year they were appointed the first Filipino members of
the Philippine Commission of the legislature. In such an
advantageous position, they were able to bring influence to bear
to achieve the appointment of Federalistas to provincial
governorships, the Supreme Court, and top positions in the civil
service. Although the party boasted a membership of 200,000 by
May 1901, its proposal to make the islands a state of the United
States had limited appeal, both in the islands and in the United
States, and the party was widely regarded as being opportunistic.
In 1905 the party revised its program over the objections of its
leaders, calling for "ultimate independence" and changing its
name to the National Progressive Party (Partido Nacional
Progresista).
The Nacionalista Party, established in 1907, dominated the
Philippine political process until after World War II. It was led
by a new generation of politicians, although they were not
ilustrados and were by no means radical. One of the
leaders, Manuel Quezon, came from a family of moderate wealth. An
officer in Aguinaldo's army, he studied law, passed his bar
examination in 1903, and entered provincial politics, becoming
governor of Tayabas in 1906 before being elected to the
Philippine Assembly the following year. His success at an early
age was attributable to consummate political skills and the
support of influential Americans. His Nacionalista Party
associate and sometime rival was Sergio Osmeña, the
college-educated son of a shopkeeper, who had worked as a
journalist. The former journalist's thoroughness and command of
detail made him a perfect complement to Quezon. Like Quezon,
Osmeña had served as a provincial governor (in his home province
of Cebu) before being elected in 1907 to the assembly and, at age
twenty-nine, selected as its first speaker.
Although the Nacionalista Party's platform at its founding
called for "immediate independence," American observers believed
that Osmeña and Quezon used this appeal only to get votes. In
fact, their policy toward the Americans was highly accommodating.
In 1907 an understanding was reached with an American official
that the two leaders would block any attempt by the Philippine
Assembly to demand independence. Osmeña and Quezon, who were the
dominant political figures in the islands up to World War II,
were genuinely committed to independence. The failure of
Aguinaldo's revolutionary movement, however, had taught them the
pragmatism of adopting a conciliatory policy.
The appearance of the Nacionalista Party in 1907 marked the
emergence of the party system, although the party was without an
effective rival from 1916 for most of the period until the
emergence of the Liberal Party in 1946. Much of the system's
success (or, rather, the success of the Nacionalistas) depended
on the linkage of modern political institutions with traditional
social structures and practices. Most significantly, it involved
the integration of local-level elite groups into the new
political system. Philippine parties have been described by
political scientist Carl Landé as organized "upward" rather than
"downward." That is, national followings were put together by
party leaders who worked in conjunction with local elite
groups--in many cases the descendants of the principalía
of Spanish times--who controlled constituencies tied to them in
patron-client relationships. The issue of independence, and the
conditions and timing under which it would be granted, generated
considerable passion in the national political arena. According
to Landé, however, the decisive factors in terms of popular
support were more often local and particularistic issues rather
than national or ideological concerns. Filipino political
associations depended on intricate networks of personalistic
ties, directed upward to Manila and the national legislature.
The linchpins of the system created under United States
tutelage were the village- and province-level notables--often
labeled bosses or caciques by colonial administrators--who
garnered support by exchanging specific favors for votes.
Reciprocal relations between inferior and superior (most often
tenants or sharecroppers with large landholders) usually involved
the concept of utang na loob (repayment of debts) or
kinship ties, and they formed the basis of support for
village-level factions led by the notables
(see
The Social Values and Organization
, ch. 2). These factions decided political party
allegiance. The extension of voting rights to all literate males
in 1916, the growth of literacy, and the granting of women's
suffrage in 1938 increased the electorate considerably. The
elite, however, was largely successful in monopolizing the
support of the newly enfranchised, and a genuinely populist
alternative to the status quo was never really established.
The policy of attraction ensured the success of what colonial
administrators called the political education of the Filipinos.
It was, however, also the cause of its greatest failure. Osmeña
and Quezon, as the acknowledged representatives, were not
genuinely interested in social reform, and serious problems
involving land ownership, tenancy, and the highly unequal
distribution of wealth were largely ignored. The growing power of
the Nacionalista Party, particularly in the period after 1916
when it gained almost complete control of a bicameral Filipino
legislature, barred the effective inclusion of nonelite interests
in the political system. Not only revolution but also moderate
reform of the social and economic systems were precluded.
Discussions of policy alternatives became less salient to the
political process than the dynamics of personalism and the ethic
of give and take.
Data as of June 1991
|
