The Philippines is the longest lasting democracy in Southeast Asia, but its quality has been persistently poor. American colonial officials organized elections under the Commonwealth system in the 1930s, after setting up political institutions on the US model. Post-independent governments continued to hold regular elections after the Philippines gained its independence in 1946. The system proved unstable, however, as it produced tensions that opened the door to authoritarian rule. First elected as president in 1965, Marcos declared martial law in 1972 and officially disbanded the Philippines’ long-standing electoral democracy. The authoritarian regime lasted fourteen years before a “People Power” revolution brought it down in 1986. This marked the Philippines’ transition to its current democratic regime. Rather than build a new democratic system, however, the crafters of the Philippines’ new constitution returned to the previous model of a US-based presidential system. Established elites recaptured it, and recreated many of the problems that marked the pre-Marcos democracy. As a result, the new democracy has held regular elections but its quality remains low.

We can explain this pattern of transformation and continuity by focusing on some comparative similarities with other cases while also recognizing some factors specific to the Philippines. As in the case of Indonesia, some scholars such as Carl Landé have emphasized the continuity of practices across time (Landé, 1965). Patrimonialism, they argue, has been a persistent feature of Filipino politics. Close ties between patrons and their clients allowed wealthy families to strengthen and maintain their political and economic power. From this perspective, there was little difference between democratic regimes before and after Marcos, as well as his authoritarian period, since wealth concentration, and the use of state instruments to enhance private wealth have been persistent features of the system, whether authoritarian or democratic.