By REV. LUNA DINGAYAN
www.nordis.net

“When Samuel grew old, he made his sons judges in Israel… But they did not follow their father’s example; they were interested only in making money, so they accepted bribes and did not decide cases honestly.” — I Samuel 8:1, 3

Election 2013

Political dynasty seems to be a dead and forgotten issue in the forthcoming 2013 local and national elections. By simply looking at the names of candidates for the various positions in government, we can be sure that many if not most of them are either sons or daughters, wives or husbands or close relatives of incumbent or former elected government officials. We can even find husband and wife tandem, or father and son, or father and daughter running for the local positions. And sometimes, they even take pride that they are descendants or close relatives of former politicians. As a matter of fact, we can say that in every province or municipality certain families seem to have a franchise of political leadership and have dominated the political landscape since time in memorial.

For the electorate, political dynasty should be a big issue. For this is one of the roots of graft and corruption in government. The framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution have seen already the corrupting consequences of political dynasty based on painful lessons from previous regimes. The Constitutional provision is clearly stated in Article II, Section 26, “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties…” However, to implement specifically this general provision, there must be a law passed by congress to serve as a guideline. Naturally, people in congress will never legislate something against their political interests. In the first place, most of them belong to political dynasties. And so, the prohibition of political dynasties in our country has never been observed.

Political Dynasty in the Bible

In the Bible, the Israelites also experienced the negative effects of political dynasty. For almost two hundred years, they had a relatively egalitarian society with a decentralized form of governance. The tribes were governed by respective council of elders, but they were bound together by a tribal confederation founded on a covenant relationship with Yahweh, their God.

The Israelites were conquered by Canaanite tribes from time to time and were made slaves. This was viewed as a consequence of their sin of idolatry. They worshipped Canaanite gods and followed the Canaanite way of life, abandoning their covenant relationship with Yahweh and disobeying God’s commandments.

In the midst of hardships and difficulties, the Israelites would cry out unto the Lord for help. Then, God would call a judge to liberate them from slavery. As a result, their relationship with Yahweh would be restored, and they would become prosperous again.

The judges emerged in times of crisis; they were considered crisis leaders. Upon resolving the crisis, they would step down; they would not remain as leaders. There was no dynasty among the judges.

But something happened during Prophet Samuel’s time that changed the course of Israel’s history. The Bible says, “When Samuel grew old, he made his sons judges in Israel… But they did not follow their father’s example; they were interested only in making money, so they accepted bribes and did not decide cases honestly” (I Sam. 8:1, 3).

Negative Effects of Political Dynasty

There are negative effects of political dynasty as shown in Israel’s history and also in our own. First of all, it leads to corruption and injustice. According to the Scriptures, when Prophet Samuel made his sons judges in Israel, “they did not follow his example; they were interested only in making money, so they accepted bribes and did not decide cases honestly.” The saying, “Like father, like son” or “Like mother, like son,” is not always true. The father or mother may be honest, faithful, and genuine in his service to the people, but this is not necessarily the case with the son or daughter.

Samuel was not only a prophet; he was also priest and judge. He was a very powerful person. Making his sons judges when he was already old and about to die was playing with the nagging temptation of political dynasty. The problem is that his sons didn’t have the same faith and trust in God like their father. Apparently, they never thought that being a judge is a calling from God; a divine responsibility entrusted to them to be exercised with a sense of justice and love for the people. To be a leader is not supposed to be an inheritance from their father to be used for anything they wish, especially to satisfy their desire for money even to the point of perverting justice. To be a leader is to be a servant of the people.

The Ampatuan Massacre in Maguindanao is perhaps one of the worst, if not the worst expression in recent times of the negative effects of political dynasty. The Ampatuans have ruled Maguindanao, like their own fiefdom, for many years. And they have no qualms in physically eliminating anyone who would threaten their grip on political power.

Moreover, political dynasty is undemocratic. It is probably consistent with monarchial, dictatorial, and other authoritarian governments, but not with “the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” It is against the basic tenets of genuine democracy. True, we are supposed to be a democratic country, but the democracy we have is an elitist kind of democracy in which political dynasty can thrive so well.

Prophet Samuel had a confrontation with the people who were clamoring for change from a relatively egalitarian and decentralized government that they had for almost two hundred years, into a monarchial form of government to be adapted from other nations. Apparently, the people didn’t know what they were clamoring for. They wanted to get rid with political dynasty, but then they embraced monarchy, a system that promotes and practices political dynasty. The Lord instructed Prophet Samuel to listen to the people and to give them what they wanted, but nevertheless warn them of the negative effects of monarchy. True, the Israelites had to suffer the abuses and injustices of the monarchs that ruled Israel in the years that followed.

Likewise, we ousted the Dictator, because we wanted a democratic form of government. We wanted to get rid of political dynasty. Hence, we enshrined it in our constitution. But, unfortunately, what we got is not a genuine democracy, but an elitist democracy wherein opportunities for political leadership is given only to those rich and powerful families in our country. The anti-political dynasty provision of our Constitution is almost forgotten. No wonder, graft and corruption and the abuse of power and authority abound in our country.

Similarly, the Israelites wanted to have a monarchy under God’s reign so that the king was not supposed to be an absolute ruler but God’s servant (cf. Dt. 17). What they got, however, was an absolute monarchy wherein the kings followed their hearts’ desires rather than what were enshrined in God’s laws. Consequently, the Israelites suffered the abuses of the kings and their country was destroyed.

Future Hope

The problem of political dynasty in Israel was never resolved until Jesus came with a new teaching about leadership. In Mark 10:42-45, Jesus says, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the heathen have power over them; and the leaders have complete authority. This, however, is not the way it is among you. If one of you wants to be great, you must be the servant of the rest; and if one of you wants to be first, you must be the slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served; he came to serve and to give his life to redeem many people.”

However, this concept of servant-leadership has been distorted nowadays by politicians who project themselves as servants of the people during campaign period, but servants of themselves, their families and friends, when they are already in power.

And so, where does our future hope lie? Jesus Christ our Lord did not go to Pilate, to Herod, or even to Caiphas – the political and religious leaders of his day – to introduce a change in political leadership that is in keeping of God’s reign. Rather he went to the ordinary masses of people, who are “like sheep without a shepherd” and patiently and lovingly taught them by word and by deeds what it means to be a leader and a servant at the same time. For Jesus, only an enlightened and empowered citizenry can make a meaningful change in our political landscape. # www.nordis.net