Dynasties: Democracy’s Double-Edged Sword

By Herman M. Lagon

Some names never seem to leave the political stage. Political dynasties have clung to power for generations throughout the country, from Malacanang to the barangays. These familiar names on every ballot bring comfort to some and frustration to others. But is every political dynasty bad for democracy? Or does the reality sit in the gray space between loyalty and stagnation?

Dynasties often get blamed for fostering privilege, patronage, and consolidating power. The numbers back this up. A study by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) shows that political families run 113 out of 149 cities in the country. In Iloilo, names like Garin, Defensor, Biron, Tupas, Palmares, Gorriceta, and Treñas dominate local politics like immovable fixtures. These families have built webs of influence and obligation that keep them at the top of every election cycle, often unchallenged by new contenders.

Not all dynasties are overtly corrupt, but the power consolidation and privilege pattern remains clear. Several leaders in Iloilo, for instance, exemplify how entrenched political families often maintain their influence through a cycle of name recall and patronage. While development projects and visible improvements are presented as achievements, they often mask deeper systemic inequality and power concentration issues. Familiarity and name recognition become tools to secure votes, leaving little room for fresh perspectives or competition.

Research by political scientist Dean Dulay from Singapore Management University reveals that dynastic rule tends to result in higher government spending but not necessarily on initiatives that promote growth or alleviate poverty. Instead, resources are often directed to reinforce loyalty networks, strengthening personal influence rather than fostering meaningful development. This spending fuels patronage systems that keep political families in power while real progress for ordinary citizens lags.

This dynamic is particularly visible in Iloilo’s rural districts. Some political families use their entrenched influence to direct resources toward loyal constituencies, reinforcing a system where political loyalty is rewarded over merit or innovation. Political aspirants outside these dynastic circles face steep odds because voter loyalty often hinges on immediate material benefits, creating an environment where fresh political ideas struggle to take root.

The normalization of political patronage has become a self-sustaining cycle. A study by Ernesto and Ma. Lindy Saquibal found that many barangay officials in Iloilo City saw patronage as a practical way to win votes. Politicians offer quick fixes, earning voter loyalty, while deeper issues like poverty, education gaps, and corruption stay unresolved.

This power concentration weakens vital checks and balances. Political reform advocate Eirene Aguila warns of the dangers when familial ties weaken accountability, particularly in cases where mayors and vice mayors are closely related. The necessary friction between local government branches disappears, making it easier for public funds to be misused without oversight.

The problem is not just about who holds power but how that power is maintained. Dynastic politicians often exploit their influence to perpetuate their family’s dominance, prioritizing personal gain over public service. Leaders who have retained power through successive elections exemplify how name recognition can substitute for meaningful political competition, leaving little room for new leaders with fresh perspectives.

At the core of this issue is choice. Democracy thrives on competition and fresh ideas—both are stifled when power stays within families. While the 1987 Constitution prohibits political dynasties, the absence of an enabling law keeps this rule toothless. Unsurprisingly, lawmakers from these same powerful clans have little reason to support reforms that would weaken their own grip.

Yet, cracks in this system are starting to show. A Pulse Asia survey reveals that 31% of Filipino voters now consider themselves politically independent, signaling growing frustration with entrenched family rule. In Iloilo, grassroots groups advocating for transparency and accountability are beginning to disrupt the old political order.

But real change goes beyond voter frustration. Reforms like stricter campaign finance laws and a long-overdue anti-dynasty bill are essential to creating a fairer political landscape. More importantly, leadership must be seen as a public responsibility—not a family heirloom.

Political dynasties present a paradox: while a few have contributed to progress, most have deepened inequality and weakened democracy. The challenge is to build a system where leaders rise by merit, not name. As the political landscape shifts, voters hold the power to break this cycle and push for a fairer, more competitive future.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.