Meritocracy or elite democracy?

An
assessment of the 2013 senatorial bets

Dr. Nicole Curato is an Assistant Professor of Sociology from the

University of the Philippines-Diliman. She was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Centre
for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the Australian National University
and is the current Associate Editor of The Manila Review.

The 2013 midterm election is a tightly contested race, particularly for the Senate. Of the thirty
three senatorial candidates, sixteen are now considered to have a statistical chance of winning.
One of the widely shared interpretations of such a dynamic relates to the issue of political
dynasties. Since the filing of certificates of candidacy last October, public discourse has focused
on the seemingly disproportionate advantage of candidates that have immediate relatives
currently sitting in national posts. The traditional election combination of guns, goons and gold
has been reformulated to, as one candidate puts it, pera, patalastas at political clans.
I have written several pieces on the subject and expressed deep concern over this trend.
A broader view of this years cohort of senatorial bets, however, can better contextualize the
politics of privilege in our electoral democracy. Closely related to kinship ties are other
characteristics of todays democratic space.
UPs Halalan Team* generated a profile of senatorial candidates, which provides an indication of
the patterns of inclusion and exclusion in this electoral race:
First, our electoral politics remains to be masculine space. Only eight, or a quarter of this year's
senatorial candidates are women Nancy Binay, Tingting Cojuangco, Risa Hontiveros, Loren
Legarda, Jamby Madrigal, Mitos Magsaysay, Grace Poe and Cynthia Villar.
Several studies have also observed that while Filipinas have played prominent roles in politics,
their political capital is usually built on their relationship with a politically well-connected father
or spouse. Binay, Cojuangco, Magsaysay, Villar and, to a certain extent, Poe fall under this
category.

One can carefully make a claim that the election of these candidates challenges the gains of
incumbent female senators. While Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Loren Legarda have
successfully built their political careers without relying on a politically dominant male kin, the
entry of female senators with political surnames reinforces the unfortunate pattern of women
participating in politics as extensions of their male kins political careers.
Furthermore, the combination of dynastic and sexist politics deters ordinary Filipinas from
having a fair shot at winning a national post.
Second, this years race is particularly interesting because of the seemingly good performance of
younger candidates. This makes Senator Miriam Defensor Santiagos appeal to Filipinos to vote
young and reject septuagenarians rather timely.
The average age of senatorial candidates is 53 years old but there is a major difference between
the average age of candidates that rank well in surveys (ranks 1-16) and those that do not (ranks
12-33). The average age of the former is 46.5 while the latter is 57.4.
This, however, is not to say that young candidates generally fare better. There is a wide gap
between the survey rankings of candidates under forty. Aquino (35 years old) and Binay (39) are
among the top ranked candidates while Belgica (34), Seeres (36), and Llasos (37) are among
the lowest ranked.
Interestingly, it is Belgica and Seeres that have formal experience in elected public office.
Finally, senatorial candidates register a rather impressive educational background. Eighty per
cent of candidates have advanced degrees (law, MA, MBA, PhD), making a postgraduate
diploma the norm rather than the exception among candidates.
Most candidates are also from so-called elite schools, with 18 out of 33 candidates attending
the University of the Philippines. This profile prompts reflection, whether citizens are witnessing
the rise of meritocracy with the emergence of a highly educated political class or the
consolidation of an elite democracy where only those that have access to exclusive educational
institutions stand a chance at winning a national seat.
While there is undeniable merit in having a highly educated political class, it is equally important
to be wary of its dangers in stifling our political imagination. In the past decade, the global south
has witnessed symbolic democratic victories where a former steelworker became President of
Brazil, a bus driver took over the late Hugo Chavezs presidency in Venezuela and a coca farmer
made history and became Bolivias first indigenous President. These are important political
achievements as they give life to the ideal of political equality that historically marginalized
groups can have power. There may be danger in romanticizing ground-breaking leaders but it is
equally dangerous to put blind faith to highly educated elites.
It has been said that elections in the Philippines are simply proxies for intra-elite competition.
Such characterization is not difficult to accept considering the data presented above. However,
the good news is that Philippine politics cannot be reduced to the exclusiveness of our elite

politics. To do so is to ignore the intense and vibrant democratic activity among citizens in
NGOs, peoples organizations, issue-based coalitions and even social media.
Democracy, as Stephen Coleman points out, is a creative project, the success of which depends
upon a certain mode of sensibility among its citizens who refuse to raise the white flag against
elite democracy posing as meritocracy. Voting is one step in continuing such struggle, but bulk
of the work in deepening democracy happens after May 13.