Rethinking Democratization in the Philippines: Elections, Political Families, and Parties 65 and parties is a necessary step in this direction but this daunting challenge remains unresolved and requires the collective participation and vigilance of the country's leaders and people. _______________ END NOTES 1 See Felipe B. Miranda, Temario C. Rivera, Malaya C. Ronas, and Ronald D. Holmes, Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy. Quezon City: Commission on Human Rights in the Philippines and the United Na ons development Programme, 2011. 2 Thus, in one of the many tragic ironies of Philippine poli cal history, the key beneficiaries of authoritarian rule—the Marcos-Romualdez poli cal families – have remained unpunished and have regained full poli cal power at both na onal and local levels. 3 The failure to pass the law that would have formalized the crea on and implementa on of a new autonomous Muslim region was triggered by the Mamasapano armed encounter in January 2015 in Maguindanao, Mindanao between elite police units of the government and various armed Muslim groups, resul ng in the killing of 44 policemen and 18 Muslims. 4 This “monitoring of power” by civil society groups in the Philippine context cannot be equated with the no on of “monitory democracy” espoused by John Keane (2009) where “powermonitoring and power-controlling devices” are exercised in a fully func onal democracy, in fact in what he calls a “post-Westminster” form of democracy. In an undemocra c order such as the Philippines, one has to be prepared to risk life and limb to engage in the “monitoring of power”. 5 As argued by Stepan, Linz, and Yadav (2011), even within the process of na on and state building, one can have conflic ng logics and priori es as shown by those who pursue tradi onal na on-building models from those who try to cra “state-na ons” in socie es with a shared poli cal community but with deep cultural diversi es. 6 For a discussion of the dynamics of state and family rela ons, see Alfred W. McCoy, ed., An Anarchy of Families: State and Family in the Philippines. University of Wisconsin, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, 1993. 7 A classic discussion of this problem in the poli cal science literature is by Samuel P. Hun ngton. Poli cal Order in Changing Socie es. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. 8 The “state in society” approach as exemplified in the book edited by Migdal, Kohli and Shue (1994), as well as earlier “state-society” approaches run the risk of neglec ng interna onal forces and actors that heavily impinge on the process. As conceded by co-authors Kohli and Shue themselves, the role of interna onal factors need to be integrated in the analysis to provide a comprehensive understanding of the process. Like many developing states, the Philippine experience has been necessarily shaped to a significant extent by interna onal factors whether in its colonial or post-colonial manifesta ons. Whether interna onal forces have strengthened or weakened state-building and democra za on processes need to be be er understood in specific historical contexts. For a systema c use of the “state in society” framework that also incorporates global forces for understanding Philippine history, see Patricio N. Abinales and Donna J. Amoroso, State and Society in the Philippines. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc., 2005. 9 See Hun ngton (1968).