When the Party List System was made part of the country’s electoral process, the idea was to give the poor and the marginalized sectors a voice in legislation. Congress, however, redefined party list and included the “underrepresented” in the concept. The underrepresented supposedly refers to sectors, organizations, and parties that “lack well-defined political constituencies but could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.”

Ely H. Manalansan Jr., a staff researcher at the House of Representatives and one of the authors featured in Oligarchic Politics Elections and the Party-List System, noted that this redefined concept opened the party list system to elite organizations and mainstream political parties, which did not waste time in forming groups purportedly composed of underrepresented individuals. As a result, the party list has become an extended playing field for traditional politicians to perpetuate their stay in power and for business tycoons to increase their clout.

Oligarchic Politics was  launched on May 8, 2007 at the Balay Kalinaw, UP Diliman. The book was published by the Center for People Empowerment in Governance (Cen-PEG), a public policy center set up to promote “the democratic repre-sentation of the marginalized poor in an elitist and patronage-driven electoral and political system.”

During the launch, Bobby M. Tuazon, a member of CenPEG Board of Directors and editor of Oligarchic Politics, said that the book is a response to the political crisis the country is currently reeling from. “We are trying to make sense of the political events that have been weighing down our country,” he explained. “The massive election fraud in 2004, persistent efforts to impeach the President, attempts to amend the Constitution, insurgencies and declaration of state of emergency, and human rights violations—these are all a cry for reforms in our electoral process and system of governance.”

Oligarchic Politics, pointed out Tuazon, mirrors the wide-ranging intricacy of the country’s problems through the multi-disciplinary background of its authors. “The writers come from various disciplines such as sociology, history, mass communication, and mathematics,” he said. “They provide perspectives and analyses of our political situation that are unique to their respective professions.”  Tuazon himself is a journalist and teaches political science in UP Manila.

Aside from Manalansan, his Oligarchic Politics co-authors—Prof. Francis A. Gealogo, former UP Faculty Regent Roland G. Simbulan, Prof. Felix P. Muga, and Prof. Danilo Arao—also presented a summary of their essays during the launch.

Prof. Francis A. Gealogo, who teaches history at the Ateneo de Manila University, traces the development of political parties in the country, from the formation of the Nacionalista in 1907 to the birth of the multi-party system after the EDSA People Power in 1986. Alongside these main-stream parties, he said alternative organizations have always existed to call for governance and electoral reforms.

Former UP Faculty Regent Roland G. Simbulan, a professor of development studies and political economy in UP Manila, observed that with the political system dominated by the well-entrenched elite, the participation of party-list groups has been limited. To break this personality- and money-oriented politics, he suggested the establishment of a mechanism that would provide for a continuous dialogue with the people and the involvement of the citizens in the decision-making process.

Math professor Felix P. Muga, also of the Ateneo de Manila University, noted that the three-seat cap, first party rule, and 2% threshold policy negate the principal objective of the Party-List System to promote proportional representation in Congress. He said that party-list groups should not be limited to three seats even if they are able to draw in more than the required number of votes.

For Prof. Danilo A. Arao, faculty member of the UP Diliman College of Mass Communications, journalists can help bring about electoral reforms by exposing the stands politicians take on important issues.

Prof. Felipe Miranda, faculty member of UP Diliman Department of Political Science and president of Pulse Asia, gave his comments on the book after the authors discussed their respective essays. He commended CenPEG and the authors for tackling the party-list system in time for the May 2007 elections. He said Oligarchic Politics provides well-argued viewpoints, a scholarly historical account, and interesting statistical information.

However, Prof. Miranda faulted the authors for calling the Philippines a democracy which, he said, is not true. Democracy, he explained, comes from two Greek words—demos or people, and kratia or rule or power. In the Philippines, he continued, it is not the people who exercise power in society but an elite few. Elections in the recent past years have been “mere consuelo de bobo for the people to exercise their right to vote but not necessarily to choose their leaders.” Election results, in other words, are rigged.

The authors, according to Prof. Miranda, should have given more emphasis on the “strength of the people” to effect reforms in electoral process and governance. Instead, he said the authors chose to be “civilized” and “polite” in pointing out issues that are as important as distinguishing the party-list groups that truly rep-resent the marginalized from those that are mere fronts of mainstream parties.

Overall, he gave Oligarchic Politics a grade of 1.25—very good but not excellent.