American Colonial Rule
Three hundred years of Spanish colonial rule ended with the Philippine war of independence in 1896. Philippine independence was no sooner proclaimed than it was lost to the United States—a casualty of the Spanish-American War. The American colonial era saw little change in the patterns of elite-dominated politics in the Philippines. American colonial administrators repeatedly acknowledged the poverty and social, political, and economic inequities attendant on the prevailing patterns of landownership and distribution of wealth. Yet they concentrated on less controversial education, public health, and infrastructure programs rather than on fundamental societal reform.
As had their Spanish predecessors, U.S. colonial administrators (1898-1946) relied upon the Filipino landowning elite and their clientelist networks for social control. The contest for relative power continued between Manila and the localities. U.S. introduction of periodic elections facilitated elite penetration of the state by creating a wide range of elective offices at the local and provincial levels. In capturing these offices, the Philippine elites founded many of the political dynasties that dominate present-day politics. The clientelist networks of the landowning elite became the foundation for national political alliances. The sugar bloc was particularly effective in utilizing its considerable economic resources to build patron-client networks and exercise regional and national political power. Many of the bloc’s most prominent figures were from Negros Occidental. The power of the provincial landowning elite thus continued to frustrate efforts to develop a strong central state. As Willem Wolters notes, “The classic state monopolies known from European history, namely those over violence and taxation, have never been fully developed in the Philippines.”
The stage was thus set for a post-independence Philippine “democracy” in which the vast majority of the population exerted little influence, and from which they derived little benefit. Electoral campaigns wee not mass appeals to voters nor forums for the discussion of societal issues, but negotiations between provincial elites and national political personalities.” In the period 1907-1941,Philippine politics in general, and in the independence movement in particular, was dominated by the Nacionalista Party, whose members and leaders came from the wealthiest Philippine families. The only calls for agrarian reform emanated from a few radical parties, whish were small, under-funded, and operative only in parts of Luzon. In voting, tenants and landless laborers—dependent and new to politics—typically followed the lead of their landlord or patron.
At the same time, the 1938 union of the Socialist Party and the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP = Communist party), under the PKP banner, provided a vehicle for mobilizing a portion of the disgruntled peasantry in Central Luzon. They helped inspire strikes and the Sakdal uprisings in the later years of American rule. These were the precursors to the Hulk rebellion of the 1940s and 1950s.
To Be Continued…
Three hundred years of Spanish colonial rule ended with the Philippine war of independence in 1896. Philippine independence was no sooner proclaimed than it was lost to the United States—a casualty of the Spanish-American War. The American colonial era saw little change in the patterns of elite-dominated politics in the Philippines. American colonial administrators repeatedly acknowledged the poverty and social, political, and economic inequities attendant on the prevailing patterns of landownership and distribution of wealth. Yet they concentrated on less controversial education, public health, and infrastructure programs rather than on fundamental societal reform.
As had their Spanish predecessors, U.S. colonial administrators (1898-1946) relied upon the Filipino landowning elite and their clientelist networks for social control. The contest for relative power continued between Manila and the localities. U.S. introduction of periodic elections facilitated elite penetration of the state by creating a wide range of elective offices at the local and provincial levels. In capturing these offices, the Philippine elites founded many of the political dynasties that dominate present-day politics. The clientelist networks of the landowning elite became the foundation for national political alliances. The sugar bloc was particularly effective in utilizing its considerable economic resources to build patron-client networks and exercise regional and national political power. Many of the bloc’s most prominent figures were from Negros Occidental. The power of the provincial landowning elite thus continued to frustrate efforts to develop a strong central state. As Willem Wolters notes, “The classic state monopolies known from European history, namely those over violence and taxation, have never been fully developed in the Philippines.”
The stage was thus set for a post-independence Philippine “democracy” in which the vast majority of the population exerted little influence, and from which they derived little benefit. Electoral campaigns wee not mass appeals to voters nor forums for the discussion of societal issues, but negotiations between provincial elites and national political personalities.” In the period 1907-1941,Philippine politics in general, and in the independence movement in particular, was dominated by the Nacionalista Party, whose members and leaders came from the wealthiest Philippine families. The only calls for agrarian reform emanated from a few radical parties, whish were small, under-funded, and operative only in parts of Luzon. In voting, tenants and landless laborers—dependent and new to politics—typically followed the lead of their landlord or patron.
At the same time, the 1938 union of the Socialist Party and the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP = Communist party), under the PKP banner, provided a vehicle for mobilizing a portion of the disgruntled peasantry in Central Luzon. They helped inspire strikes and the Sakdal uprisings in the later years of American rule. These were the precursors to the Hulk rebellion of the 1940s and 1950s.
To Be Continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment