Rethinking Democratization in the Philippines: Elections, Political Families, and Parties 49 the process of state-building and nation-building largely preceded the onset of democratization (with the exception of the United States). Thus, in the experience of the European industrialized states, a relatively politically unied state with working national political institutions were already in place when the process of democratization got activated. In much of the colonized, developing world, however, the process of democratization (as typied by the foundational system of elections after independence) oftentimes took place under conditions of contested national identities and the absence or weakness of functioning state institutions (Fukuyama 2004). In short, most developing countries including the Philippines had to undergo highly compressed, simultaneous challenges of nation-building, statebuilding, and democratization with oftentimes disastrous outcomes. But while this knowledge hopefully leads to a better understanding of the formidable challenges of these processes, it cannot also be made an excuse for perpetually dysfunctional systems that continue to be referred to as democracies. After all, the Philippines has had the longest experience of elections and formal democratic processes in the region. It also had the most promising record of economic growth in Southeast Asia during the decade after World War II. More than six decades later, we have lagged behind our major neighbors in the region on many aspects of development. What went wrong? Elections and Democratization in the Philippines An understanding of the politics and electoral exercises of the country demands a careful analysis of the resilience of powerful families who have consistently monopolized various national and local positions in the country.6 This is not surprising since the evolution of the political and economic system of the country revolved around a core of notables made up of the educated elite (ilustrados), landlords, and oligarchs historically empowered and legitimized by the system of elections institutionalized by the American colonial order. (Rivera 1994; Hutchcroft 2000; Cullinane 2003; Simbulan 2005). What needs to be understood more systematically is why such political clans have proven to be an enduring feature of the country's social structure and political system and the impact of this structure on state-building and democratization. A better understanding of the political and electoral dynamics of the country is gained by studying these powerful clans rather than, for instance, overly focusing on the country's largely unstable and weakly institutionalized party system. Unlike the political parties which are largely loose, unstable coalitions of elite families activated only during elections, powerful clans are enduring structures of economic and political power.
Modernization theory assumes the breakdown of traditional and particularistic anchors of social coherence and loyalties such as the family, village, and tribe, and the growth of “nation-states” and democracy. However, in many developing societies, such exclusivist and particularistic social groupings have persisted and the predicted outcomes of stable democratic