[Blueboard] Interrogating ‘change’ and the institutions behind it

This year marks 50 years since the declaration of Martial Law. Following this year’s eventful and emotionally charged national elections, the Philippines is under another Marcos presidency. This year’s commemoration of the anniversary of Martial Law comes at a time that activists, scholars, and interest groups from different sectors are in the heat of pushing back against disinformation and the white washing of this grim period in Philippine history.

Succeeding the 2022 national elections, some of the questions that opposition groups ask are: “How could this happen again?”, “What went wrong?” as well as questions that seek to understand how a Marcos presidency could have happened again, and how the image of the Marcoses has been slowly rehabilitated throughout the years. On the surface, succeeding the 1986 EDSA Revolution, the constitution has been changed to prevent such a predation of power by a single president. However, in interrogating change and understanding why change can be difficult to meet, one must look further than formal laws and policies, and adopt a more holistic view of institutions that impact day to day life.

Adrian Leftwich and Kunal Sen (2011) define institutions as “durable social rules and procedures, formal and informal, which structure—but do not determine—the social, economic, and political relations and interaction of those affected by them.” Formal institutions are written laws and regulations, usually rules that are codified and formalized into legal documents and constitutions like that of the 1987 Constitution or bills that have been formalized into laws.  On the other hand, informal institutions are norms, cultures, traditions, and customs that are normally unwritten like that of patron-client (padrino) culture.

At the level of political institutions, formal and informal institutions can explain how formal rules like that of the 1987 Constitution or laws can be compromised by the influence of cultures like patron-client relations. While the formal laws in the Philippines do not explicitly mention informal norms or cultures, these are unwritten experiences majority of Filipinos are aware of. Having a patron can mean the difference between having ayuda or not, or the difference between your livelihood succeeding or not, or the difference between your child getting a public scholarship or not. Informal institutions, while largely unwritten, shape everyday interaction and can inform formal institutions. Attitudes that prejudice against those of a certain race, gender, age, etc. can influence policies as well. For example, patriarchal attitudes have historically resulted in the exclusion of women in participating in public life through elections or education. Further importance is placed on informal institutions in Leftwich and Sen’s discussion of pro-poor development. They cite Robinson (2010) in arguing that while socioeconomic or political events can trigger paths towards change, “institutional stickiness can undermine institutional reform or innovation.”

Relating these concepts to the question of change—it then becomes very important to ask the question of what institutional dynamics underlie our reality? Whether those are the formal dynamics between Congress and the courts, or the informal dynamics between my barangay captain and me. In answering the question of “how could this happen again?”, perhaps the question should be focused on asking if the institutions that dictate our everyday lives have changed at all.

Racelis (2002) discussed the context of community organizing and civil society group action during the First Quarter Storm, summarizing it as “civil society groups grew increasingly disillusioned as they contemplated lagging development and continuing poverty, corruption, violence, greedy elites, and a deteriorating society.” These conditions saw a rise in protest movements among student activists, urban workers, and peasant groups. Martial Law was declared on the pretext of the rising popularity of militant movements, and alleged societal instability that came with it. These movements were trying to subvert informal institutions that fostered inequality such as corruption that were hampering their development.

In trying to understand “what went wrong?,” more attention should be made to that of informal institutions that underpin societal relations today. While our laws have been reformed to nominally prevent such abuses of power, informal institutions still plague their implementation. The party list system, originally intended to amplify voices of marginalized groups, has become a vehicle for traditional politicians to increase in power. While checks and balances were included in the implementation of Martial Law, the reality is that the president is still able to unilaterally declare Martial Law as evidenced by the prolonged Martial Law in Mindanao from 2017 to 2019. While the 1986 EDSA Revolution can be argued as a critical juncture that could have paved the way for total institutional change, informal institutions such as corruption and attitudes of social exclusion still plague the implementation of our laws.

If change is to be met, attention must also be paid to the norms that pervade our social context. In discussing disinformation, the focus should not just be on implementing laws against it, but also responding to the cultures behind it. In other words, the question should be “why is disinformation so appealing?” and “what allows disinformation to fester?” instead of focusing on suppressing it and penalizing it. Focusing on questions like these pave the way for understanding and building solidarity within communities. Leftwich and Sen (2011), in discussing pro-poor development, highlight the importance of strong organizations that can articulate interests in going “beyond institutions,” because while institutions can shape behavior and explain the difficulties in meeting change—organizations can help determine ways forward. The strength of the First Quarter Storm, the very strength that threatened Marcos Sr., rested on community organizing that went beyond divisions—students, peasant groups, and activists alike, were oriented towards changing not just laws but also the culture of corruption and inequality.

Informal institutions of corruption and inequality cannot be responded to with laws, but rather organizing towards building new informal institutions of solidarity and equality that respond to structural issues and going beyond social divisions. These are the questions that make-or-break change. To end with Leftwich and Sen’s words, “don’t mourn, organize!”

Beatriz C. Beato, M.A. is an Instructor and Associate Chair at the Department of Political Science, Ateneo de Manila University. She is also a Research Associate at the Institute of Philippine Culture at the same university.