The Philippines is often described as a “young democracy” but this description simply serves to “justify” the way things are in this country. Yet, it is exactly these things that prevent the Philippines from even taking the road to maturity as a democracy.

Foremost is the habit of switching alliances, which seems to have become a norm in this country, with political leaders having developed the habit of supporting whoever sits in Malacanang as president. Is it to ensure that they continue to have access to the patronage that the palace may dispense? Perhaps.

This is validated by the fact that the president’s party or coalition always has the majority number of seats in Congress, particularly in the lower house, as most of its members regardless of their previous party affiliation start transferring to the president’s group when a new chief executive  takes over.

Consequently, the opposition in this country has always been in the minority. It therefore becomes almost impossible in the Philippines to have the presidency controlled by one party and Congress dominated by another party or coalition.

This deprives Philippine democracy the much needed “check and balance” which is crucial if the powers of the Presidency and of Congress were to be tempered. With the one sitting as president and majority of those in the House of Representatives actually belonging to the same party or coalition, one could argue that the Philippine government is only superficially presidential in form but actually parliamentary in operation. Parliamentary governments have occupants in the executive and the legislative branches coming from the same party or coalition. So, why the fuss of changing our present presidential government to a parliamentary one when in fact the government has been operating as if it had the parliamentary form.

Leaders in this country have developed an equally bad habit of withdrawing their support from the same president they have previously supported at the first sign that the incumbent president may not actually finish his/her term. Is it to gain the good graces of the would-be president just in case the sitting president leaves office? Again, perhaps.

This practice of continuously switching allegiance has perpetuated the politics of survival in this country at the detriment of the ordinary people. In order to survive, state leaders, particularly the president, are forced to enter into compromises and accommodation with various leaders such as political warlords at the local level, business elites including church leaders making the national government overly dependent on these various forces. This de facto makes it a captive of the interests of these actors in the political landscape and weakens its ability to govern effectively at the people’s expense.

In the Philippines, it appears that leaders who are not in power could not wait for the next round of elections to obtain political power. This practically contradicts a fundamental tenet of democracy. Democracy requires two sets of political leaders: one in office and another attempting to gain office. But democracy equally requires that such political contestation between these competing sets of leaders be made through the electoral exercise and not in between elections, where those not in office constantly doing everything to ease out those in office. When this happens, the whole country would always be in a period of contestation, with the government unable to focus on its more important function of formulating policies and implementing programs for society.

Being constantly on the look out to ensure that they are able to survive in their political posts, leaders in this country never get to actually work for the people making the people disillusioned and disappointed. The inability of political leaders to perform their functions undermines their legitimacy to govern, which makes governing more difficult if not impossible. Democracy requires conflict but not too much because too much conflict leads to the suffering of the people.

Meanwhile, it seems that in the Philippines, there are groups which have made opposing the government as their sole purpose in life no matter what administration is in charge. But they are yet to clarify a pragmatic alternative to the things that they oppose, including their proposed replacements to those whom they want to leave office. How the process of choosing who would replace whom is also left unclear. Are they willing to take the difficult responsibility of governing this seemingly ungovernable country where all government policies and programs seem to be met with resistance?

This country seems to have been in a transition phase for a long time. I don’t think the people would want to be in a transition forever. I myself don’t want it.  It is about time that the Philippines moves forward towards maturing as a democracy. Otherwise, this country would perennially be in a vicious cycle of poor governance and poverty.

Raymund Jose G. Quilop, a member of the Philippine Political Science Association, is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of the Philippines – Diliman.