22 Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy, Second Edition The Philippines as a Democratic Polity As an academic, this author is intrigued by the views of professional political scientists, Filipinos as well as others (Abueva, 1991; Quimpo,2008; Hutchcroft and Rocamora, 2003; Tigno, 2008; Lande, 2001; O'Donnell, 2009), that post-war Philippines has been governed largely democratically in the postwar period. Given the enduring political and economic stresses that dene the country's history as one of lingering underdevelopment, a highly skewed resource distribution indicative of oligarchic factors at work, open authoritarian periods of governance, persisting armed rebellions, high levels of graft and corruption and what has been generally perceived lately as " a culture of impunity" in governance, it would be gratifying to discover the reason for considering the country as a democracy or -- however unsettling the possible reality might be – a non-democracy and, probably, a non-democratic oligarchy. Democracy Denitions and a Problematic Governance History Admittedly, the country has a relatively long tradition of formal democracy conrmed by numerous constitutional and statutory provisions stipulating the character of its political institutions and the processes of governance. Despite this democratic façade, however, the dynamic operations of its politics demonstrably hew closer to oligarchic rather than democratic lines before, during, and even after Marcos. Earlier in this paper (vide pages 11-12), the author listed several denitions of democracy noted by a highly regarded British political scientist, a popular textbook writer and a political theorist of note (Heywood, 2002).2 Plotted against any and all of these meanings, the history of Philippine governance would be hard to justify as a democracy. Looking over the list, however, one can dispense with four as not being central to evaluating democracies in our times: the rule of the poor and disadvantaged, direct rule by the people, unqualied majority rule and the protection of minority interests. These four are either anachronistic (rule of the poor and disadvantaged as contemplated in ancient Athens) or impractical (direct popular rule) or imprecise within a Philippine context that allows for plurality outcomes to control and thus dene the legitimacy of most political outcomes (for instance, the people's choice of president and other public ofcials). The remaining four other senses of democracy could be applicable to the Philippine case and thus merit further discussion. One (elections) is derived from the minimalist position that democracy entails a method of selecting ofcials through competitive elections. The other three all have to do with a social context within which equality of opportunity, diminishing social inequalities, the recognition of individual merit and quality of life improvements become core concerns of democratic governance. Let's take on elections rst. One cannot argue a minimalist, Schumpeterian defense for democracy in the Philippines based on the record of past national