CABATUAN

Politics of Kinship (Political Dynasty, Alliances)

Political Dynasties in the Philippines

Political dynasties have long been present in the Philippine political structure. They are typically found
in elite families that have established themselves in a province before moving on to the national
government. Political dynasties, therefore, usually have a strong support base. Members of such
dynasties are also not limited to the politics, as they can also be active in socioeconomic spheres.

Political dynasties started emerging after the Philippine Revolution when the First Republic of the
Philippines was established. Over the years, newer dynasties surfaced as some of the initial ones became
inactive. Majority of the positions in the Philippine government are currently held by members of
political dynasties.

There have been lots of debates regarding the effects of these dynasties on the sociopolitical and
economic aspects of society. Many are agreed, however, that their predominance has resulted in higher
levels of poverty and corruption,

Political dynasties generally refer to families whose members are involved in politics. In the
Philippines, political dynasties can be seen in families that have been part of the government for several
generations. This can occur in two ways. One way is for members of a family to occupy a certain
government position in every term. If a politician's term is over and a relative of that politician gets
elected for the same position, that family can be labelled as a political dynasty. The second way is for a
number of family members to occupy government positions at the same time. As this book was being
written, there were no legal documents or laws that officially define a political dynasty in the
Philippines. There have been bills, such as the Anti-Dynasty Bill, that attempt to define a political
dynasty, but Congress has not passed any of these bills.

MORAALIM
Philippine Laws

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines states in Article II Section 26, "The State shall guarantee equal
access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law."

Despite this provision in the Constitution, no law has been passed nor any action has been made
regarding the prohibition of political dynasties. The nearest mention of political dynasties in Philippine
law can be found in Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code, where Book 1, Title Two,
Chapter 1, Section 43 states the term limit of any local government official but does not include any
limitations in terms of family relations:

(a) The term of office of all local elective officials elected after the effectivity of this Code shall be three
(3) years, starting from noon of June 30, 1992 or such date as may be provided for by law, except that of
elective barangay officials: Provided, That all local officials first elected during the local elections
immediately following the ratification of the 1987 Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.

(b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in
the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official concerned was elected.

(c) The term of office of barangay officials and members of the sangguniang kabataan shall be for three
(3) years, which shall begin after the regular election of barangay officials on the second Monday of
May 1994.

Several bills have been filed in relation to the prohibition of political dynasties. Many have called for the
Congress to pass the Anti-Dynasty Bill, but this bill has been passed over by each Congress since 1987.

Due to the increasing number of political dynasties in the Philippines, majority of the positions in
government are held by politicians that are members of political dynasties. In fact, in the years 1995-
2007, an average of 31.3% of all congressmen and 23.1% of governors were replaced by relatives. In the
1995 elections of the 83 congressmen elected or to their third term, 36 of them were replaced by a
relative in the succeeding elections. The term "relative" here is referring to anyone with a familial
connection such as a wife, a son or daughter, a cousin, etc. In many of these cases, the people who
would eventually go on to take their place had no previous political background or experience save their
familial connection.

In a study done in 2012 by economists Beja, Mendoza, Venida, and Yap, it was estimated that 40% of
all provinces in the Philippines have a provincial governor and congressman that are related in some
way. Another study, done in 2014 by Querubin of the Department of Politics in New York University,
indicated that an estimate 50-70% of all politicians are involved or associated with a political dynasty
within the Philippines, including local government units. In the same study, it was concluded that
approximately 70% of all jurisdiction-based legislators in Congress are involved in a political dynasty,
with 40% of them having ties to legislators who belong to as far as three Congresses previous. It is also
said that 77% of legislators between the ages of 26-40 are also dynastic, which indicates that the second
and third generations of political dynasties in the Philippines have begun their political careers as well.
To analyze the patterns of political dynasties within the 15th Congress, cater were created according to
the number of familial ties each politician had to politician belonging to previous Congresses:

Category 1: Those with ties to the 12th, 13th, 14 th, and 15th Congress as well as at least one family
member elected into a local government unit between the years 2001 and 2010.

Category 2: Those with familial connections to at least one person belonging to the 12th, 13th, or 14th
Congress.

Category 3: Those who share a kinship with at least one person belonging to the 12th. 13th, or 14th
dynasty, or at least one relative with a local government unit (LGU) position from 2001, 2004, or 2007
elections

In a population of 229 legislators in the 15th Congress, 155 of them are classified as belonging to the
fourth category. Of those 155, 144 of them also belong to the third category. 84 of the 144 belong in the
second category, and of the 84, 10 belong to the first category.

Many articles about political dynasties have appeared in various Philippine publications. These articles
are often critical of persons and families belonging to political dynasties. Political dynasties have
already been present in the Philippines for a significant period of time, but it has only been recently that
the public has started to question their role in Philippine politics. Public support for the bill against
political dynasties has progressively increased. In the provinces, however, political dynasties are still
held in higher regard.

A study that used pragmatic data correlated political dynasty existence with socioeconomic
development. This study stated that "this partial correlation coefficient finds a positive relationship
between poverty incidence and the proportion of political dynasties II each province." Though the study
establishes a correlation, this does not conclude whether it is a causal relationship since poverty is
multifaceted.

One of the remarkable influences of political dynasties is highlighted by the "Carnegie Effect", named
after Andrew Carnegie. The "Carnegie Effect" is based on Carnegie’s decision to give all his wealth to
non-family members. Carnegie believed that his son might have less incentive of working hard if he
were to be assured of his father's wealth. This disincentive happens among dynastic politicians.
According to an empirical survey, dynastic politicians have a significant advantage from the start of
their career. They have a statistically higher probability to win elections as compared to non-dynastic
politicians. Dynastic politicians also have generally lower educational attainment which is inversely
related to their rank in their political dynasties. There are also claims regarding economic inequalities
arising from political dynasties. This is allegedly due to political dynasties having economic power
along with their political power while a relative is in office. Another negative effect of political
dynasties is that it may restrict significant change to the system of the government unit, since dynasties
would rather stick to tried and true methods of governing rather than try to effect change. Also,
dynasties prevent new candidates from occupying new seats of power; leading to less new ideas and
platforms to work with.

Political dynasties also have extra incentive to develop their own jurisdictions. Based on the notion of
"Roving Bandits vs. Stationary Bandits", dynastic politicians are more likely to pursue developments
since they expect to be in office longer. Unlike non-dynastic politicians who have less incentive to
develop due to their limited term, political dynasties can gain benefits either directly or indirectly
through their relatives. Political dynasties are also responsible for the increase in women's political
participation in politics. Female politicians hailing from political dynasties can easily get into politics
due to their connections. Political dynasties have the advantage of continuity. The more control the
family has over the government unit, the more members of the family can occupy positions of power.
Political dynasties can use this continuity by promoting and enacting laws and ordinances that are long
term in nature, with only a slim chance of other candidates outside of the dynasty interfering with the
plans.

SULTAN
Political Alliance
A political alliance, also referred to as a political coalition or political bloc, is an agreement for
cooperation between different political parties on common political agenda, often for purposes of
contesting an election. They intend to mutually benefit from the alliance by collectively clearing
election thresholds, taking advantage of the voting system, or forming a government after elections. A
coalition government is formed when a political alliance comes to power, or when only a plurality (not a
majority) has been reached and several parties must work together to govern. One of the peculiarities of
such a method of governance results in having Cabinet Secretaries without Portfolio.

RAPHY
Political and Leadership Structures

Political Organization

The government or the political institution is another institution that is universal. Political institution is
defined as the system of norms, values, and roles responsible for maintaining social order in the society.
The following are the aspects in maintaining social order:

1. Creating formal norms - it is the political institution that has created formal norms or laws that
guide our behavior. There are three types of laws depending on their origins, namely:

a. Constitutional laws. These are formalized norms that emerge in the constitution, the written plan of
any government. The constitution describes the broad duties of the government as well as the right and
responsibilities of every citizen.

b. Statutory laws. These are laws that have been enacted by a legislative body of the government like
Congress, and City Councils. A curfew hour for minors is an example.

c. Common laws. These are unwritten laws built over a centuries on local custom and precedent, and
further developed by judicial decisions. The law originated from judicial branch of government but not
from the legislative branch. Common laws become "common" or part of the tradition of a country. They
are not permanent; they change depending on the new judicial interpretations.

2. Applying sanctions. It is the responsibility of a political institution to apply sanctions to those who
fail to follow or obey certain norms. The degree of the sanction depends on the significance of the law
being violated. If you violate the traffic law you will be fined, but if you kill any person, you will be
jailed.

3. Settling disputes among individuals. It is also one of the duties of political institution. If you believe
that your best friend gets your money from your bag, you can sue him in court. A judge will decide on
the validity of the case. If you are right on your accusation, your best friend can get a jail term and will
be obliged to return or the money he got from you. Some types of disputes may include the following:
inheritances, divorce, property rights, personal liability, and bankruptcy.

4. Settling disputes between nations. Political institution tries to resolve disputes between nations as
well. This is done to evade wars between nations, Representatives from both nations will meet and settle
the problem peacefully, but sometimes no agreement is arrived at. When two nations fail to settle their
dispute, one or both of them may bring the case to an international body. This happened in the dispute
between the Philippines and China on the islands in the West Philippine Sea. Because the two countries
failed to settle the problem between themselves, the Philippines filed a case with the Permanent Court
for Arbitration under the United Nations.

JONAINA
Bands

A band is usually a very small, oftentimes nomadic group that is connected by family ties and is
politically independent. Moving from place to place, usually in search of food, bands are most often
made up of hunter-gatherers.

Bands are essentially associations of families living together. They are loosely allied by marriage,
descent, friendship, and common interest. The primary integrating mechanism for these societies is
kinship. Bands are extremely egalitarian--all families are essentially equal. There is no economic class
differentiation. However, there are often clear status differences based on gender and age.

The status and power between all adults of the same gender in a band are horizontal. They are more or
less equal as far as community decision-making is concerned. However, some members may become
informal leaders by community consensus reached through casual discussion. These are the individuals
who stand out for their skills and knowledge. They may be gifted with good memories are the best
hunters, the most successful curers, the most gifted speakers, or have some other special ability. This
kind of leader selection is possible because the entire society is so small that everyone knows everyone
else intimately. Band leaders, however, have temporary political power and they do not have any
significant authority over the other adults. They may give advice or suggest a course of action, but they
cannot force anyone to accept their decision.

Due to the small size of bands and the fact that everyone is involved in the lives of everyone else,
quarrels between members often erupt. These quarrels split the band along family lines. So, the principle
goal of politics in most bands is to make sure that people get along with each other. This is not easy to
achieve, given human nature. Members may quarrel over food, compete for the same woman or man, or
fight over a space. As the number of people in a band increases, the potential for conflicts also rises.
Some members may decide to leave the band and form their own band. Richard Lee refers to this
process as social velocity.

Typically, there is no leadership position in bands that has the authority to conclusively settle disputes,
punish criminals, prevent families from leaving or represent the entire community in dealings with
outsiders. Decisions are made by community consensus, but people who don't agree with the consensus
generally do not have to accept it. During the late 19th century, this highly democratic diffused political
system of bands made it difficult for the U.S. government to create binding treaties with some Native
American societies in the West. It was naively assumed by the federal government that when
"spokesmen" for a band agreed to a treaty that it legally bound all members of their society to its terms.
From the perspective of the band members, it really only obligated those specific individuals who
agreed to the treaty. If others in the band failed to follow the terms of the agreement the federal
government assumed that they were going back on a legal agreement. This cultural misunderstanding on
both sides was the consequence of having radically different kinds of political systems as well as
profound ethnocentrism.

Ethnographic accounts suggest that the political power and status of women in many pedestrian foraging
bands was surprisingly high, especially compared to pastoralist and agricultural societies. Since forager
women in all but the cold Polar Regions usually provided most of the food calories consumed, they
performed economically critical roles for their families and society as a whole. Men generally hunted for
meat. This was often the most desirable but usually the least dependable food source. The central
economic role for women in providing vegetable foods, along with traditions of diffused political power
in bands, allowed women to voice their opinions at important community meetings. Clearly, women in
some types of foraging societies had significantly less political clout. The status and authority of women
in aquatic and equestrian foraging societies was usually far lower than that of men. This may be due to
the fact that men generally provided most of the food in these societies that depended on meat as their
principal source of calories. In addition, the passionate military focus of equestrian foraging societies
put men in a position to dominate political decision making.

No band level societies survive today with their traditional form of political organization intact.
However, they did until the last half of the 19th century in out-of-the-way regions of northern Siberia,
the desert and sub-arctic regions of North America and Greenland, the tropical lowlands of Central and
South America, the Australian desert interior and tropical north, as well as a few isolated areas of
Southeast Asia. While it is easy to think of these people and their traditional way of life in the past as
oddities, it is important to keep in mind that the distant ancestors of all people on earth lived in bands at
one time. Before the end of the last ice age, around 10,000 years ago, it is likely that very few societies
had more complex levels of political integration.
MORAALIM
Tribes

A tribe is somewhat more complex than a band. As the population size increases with a shift in
subsistence patterns from foraging to horticulture or pastoralism, kinship ties and friendship are no
longer sufficient to hold society together. This is especially the case when there are hundreds of people
and multiple communities. Tribes also are characteristic of some large equestrian and rich aquatic
foraging societies. Regardless of the subsistence base, new forms of societal integration become a
necessity in tribes to settle disputes and prevent the society from disintegrating.

The new integrative mechanisms of tribes are referred to by anthropologists as pan-tribal associations or
sodalities. These are groups that cross-cut society by bringing together a limited number of people,
typically at least one from each family. Pan tribal associations often are in the form of councils, groups
of elder men or women who are members of the same age set, warrior societies, religious cults, or secret
societies. While these groups have specific purposes, they also serve to create order and a sense of unity
for a tribe.

In a number of tribal societies of New Guinea, all men traditionally lived together communally in a "big
house," while women lived with their daughters and young sons in their own individual houses close to
the gardens where they farmed. Older boys went through an initiation ceremony in order to become a
man, move into the "big house", and learn the religious secrets kept by men. In these societies, men
made the important political decisions. The group of men living in the big house acted as the pan-tribal
association that cross-cut society. Even in New Guinea societies that did not have a tradition of "big
houses", the important pan-tribal associations were most often made up of men as they are in most tribal
societies. Subsequently, men had more political power and prestige than women.

Tribes commonly have village headmen who perform leadership roles, but these individuals have
relatively limited authority. Political power stems largely from their senior position within kin groups
and their ability to persuade or criticize others into doing what they want. In New Guinea and many of
the neighboring islands of Melanesia, these leaders are called "big men." In the past, there often were
competing "big men" who vied with each other for status and nominal authority over a number of
villages. They worked for years to accumulate pigs and other items of high value in order to give them
away in large, very public formal ceremonies. This functioned not only to enhance their status and
political influence but also to redistribute wealth within their societies. A similar ritualized economic
redistribution was orchestrated by the leading men among the Kwakiutl and some other rich fishing
societies on the northwest coast of North America. Their principal goal was also to increase their status
and power.

Like bands, most tribal societies are still essentially egalitarian in that no one family or residential group
is politically or economically superior to others. All families are basically alike, including those of the
headmen. They are for the most part self-sufficient with regard to food and other basic necessities.
However, tribes differ from bands in the way that they are integrated. They are also larger societies.
Tribal societies have suffered the same consequence of contact with large-scale societies. There no
longer are any tribes that have been able to maintain their traditional political systems unaltered by
outside influences.
ALIAH
Chiefdoms

Chiefdoms are similar to bands and tribes in being mostly classless societies. However, chiefdoms differ
in having a more or less permanent, full-time leader with real authority to make major decisions for their
societies. These leaders are usually referred to by anthropologists as chiefs. Sometimes there is an
advisory council as well, but there is no bureaucracy of professional administrators. The government is
essentially just the chief. Some of the more advanced chiefdoms in Africa are an exception in that they
have a paramount chief and lesser chiefs who perform administrative functions. The chiefdoms of
ancient Hawaii and elsewhere in Polynesia were similar in having several levels of chiefs. Chiefdoms
also are known historically from Europe, Asia, the southeastern United States, the Caribbean islands,
Panama, Colombia, and the Amazon Basin of Brazil.

Seniority in kin groups is usually the primary basis for individual status within chiefdoms. The chief is
at the top of the kinship hierarchy. Other people are commonly ranked in terms of their genealogical
distance from the chief. Subsequently, there is a keen interest in maintaining records of descent from
important family ancestors.

Chiefs and their families generally have a higher standard of living than ordinary people. What makes
this possible is that chiefs usually perform a society-wide economic redistribution function that, in some
cases, is done in the guise of ritual gift giving. This essentially siphons off surplus agricultural products
from farmers and then redistributes them throughout the society. In the process, a small amount is held
back in order to support the chief's more lavish lifestyle. The ritualized redistribution of surplus food
and other commodities in chiefdoms is, in a sense, the rudimentary beginnings of a taxation system. It is
probably tolerated by people because of the economic advantages that it can provide in addition to social
stability. The larger territorial size of chiefdoms often encompasses diverse environmental zones with
somewhat different products. The redistribution of surpluses can serve as a method of providing security
in times of crop failures as well as greater food variety for the populace as a whole. For instance, a
farmer may give up some of his crop but get different kinds of food in return along with enhanced
status.

The larger population of chiefdoms generally means that the people have less in common than do those
in the smaller societies of bands and tribes. Disputes inevitably arise that cannot be settled by informal
means based on kinship and friendship. A chief usually functions as an arbitrator and judge in these
cases. In some of the kingdoms of West Africa, the paramount chiefs still today "license" official truth
testers to deal with contradictory testimony in legal cases. They often use an ordeal to determine the
truth. In the hot knife ordeal, only someone telling the truth is thought to not be burned when a red hot
knife blade is stroked across his leg.

An important advantage that chiefdoms have over band and tribal level societies when conflicts arise
between them is that chiefdoms are usually more effective in warfare. This is due to the fact that
chiefdoms have two important advantages. They have larger populations so they can assemble larger
military forces. In addition, the chief can provide centralized direction which potentially allows more
decisive action. Some chiefdoms in Western South America had in excess of 100,000 people. The
Chibcha of Colombia was one of them. They became a militarily powerful force in the mountain regions
that made up their homeland.
Once functioning, the position of the chief usually becomes essential to the functioning of society.
Chiefdoms cannot go back to a tribal level unless their population drops significantly.
JETHRO
States
State level political systems first appeared in societies with large-scale intensive agriculture. They began
as chiefdoms and then evolved into more centralized, authoritarian kingdoms when their populations
grew into tens of thousands of people. While chiefdoms are societies in which everyone is ranked
relative to the chief, states are socially stratified into largely distinct classes in terms of wealth, power,
and prestige. Around 5,500 years ago, the early kingdoms of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia (now
Iraq) developed such state levels of political integration. Shortly thereafter, states evolved in the Indian
subcontinent and China. By 4,500 years ago, states were developing in Mesoamerica and the central
Andean mountain region of western South America. The early states in these six regions became the
well-known ancient civilizations. While these six centers of early civilization had major cultural and
historical differences, they created remarkably similar political solutions for dealing with the problems
of feeding and controlling large complex societies. These new political systems had a pyramid of
authority with a small hereditary elite class at the top headed by a king and royal family. At the bottom
were the commoners who were the bulk of society. They were mostly the food producing farmers upon
whom the entire society ultimately depended. In between was a small middle class consisting of two
groups. First, there were professional craftsmen and traders who mainly produced or acquired luxury
items for the elite. Second, there were professional bureaucrats who administered the state religion and
government on a daily basis.

As independent kingdoms within each of the geographic regions of the ancient civilization competed for
land, water, and other important resources, warfare became more frequent and larger in scale.
Professional armies were created along with more efficient.

weapons. In the Old World, these included horse drawn chariots, war ships, and metal swords, arrow,
and spear tips. The consequence of these wars of conquest was powerful kingdoms destroying and
annexing weaker ones. Eventually the victors ruled enormous multi-city, multi-cultural, and multi-
language empires with millions of people living over vast areas. These super-states required even more
centralization of authority and larger permanent armies. All of the ancient civilizations were
preindustrial agricultural societies with the majority of their populations living in hamlets and small
villages. Most of these essentially rural societies only had one or a few small cities of about 5,000-
50,000 people. These urban areas were primarily centers for the elite ruling class along with the state
government bureaucracy and the majority of the fulltime craft specialists and traders who worked for
them. In addition, cities were the locations of major temples of the state religions. At the top of the
religious, political, and military hierarchies were key members of the ruling elite. There was no
separation of church and state that is characteristic of the many large nation states today. For instance, a
prince could serve as an army general, a province governor, and a head priest at the same time. This was
not viewed as a conflict of interest. Ancient states were far from being egalitarian. There were a few
rich, politically powerful people and many more comparatively poor commoners who had little political
influence and almost no possibility of acquiring it. As single-city kingdoms became multi-city empires
with vast territories, the political systems generally became more rigid. Not uncommonly, the ruler
became a god-king with absolute authority. The Pharaohs of Egypt are a prime example of this. They
were thought to be not just mortals but god-kings. As living gods, their authority was absolute. Most
ancient states had slavery. The conquest of competitor states usually provided most of them. Slaves
were not always at the bottom of the pyramid of power in these societies. In Egypt and Mesopotamia,
women slaves were often integrated into the households of wealthy, powerful men as servants and
concubines. Slave children fathered by their owner sometimes acquired freedom and far higher status,
wealth, and power than many commoners.

Authority and Legitimacy

The influential sociologist Max Weber proposed a theory of authority that included three types. He
pioneered a path towards understanding how authority is legitimated as a belief system. His essay "The
three types of legitimate rule" translated in English and published posthumously in 1958, is the clearest
explanation of his theory. Herbert Spencer interpreted Weber's theory to say that legitimate order and
authority stems from "different aspects of a single phenomenon -- the forms that underlie all instances of
ordered human interaction". There are two fundamental components of order, norms and authority.
Spencer explained that "authority and norms represent polar principles of social organization: In the one
case organization rests upon orientation to a rule or a principle; in the other instance it is based upon
compliance to commands".

According to Weber there are three types of authority, namely: traditional, charismatic, and legal-
rational authority.
VALDEZ
Authority Types

1. Traditional authority is legitimated by the sanctity of tradition. The ability and right to rule is passed
down, often through heredity. It does not change overtime, does not facilitate social change, tends to be
irrational and inconsistent, and perpetuates the status quo. In fact, Weber states: "The creation of new
law opposite traditional norms is deemed impossible in principle." Traditional authority is typically
embodied in feudalism or patrimonialism. In a purely patriarchal structure, "the servants are completely
and personally dependent upon the lord", while in an estate system (i.e. feudalism), "the servants are not
personal servants of the lord but independent men". But, in both cases the system of authority does not
change or evolve.
2. Charismatic authority is found in a leader whose mission and vision inspire others. It is based upon
the perceived extraordinary characteristics of an individual. Weber saw a charismatic leader as the head
of a new social movement, and one instilled with divine or supernatural powers, such as a religious
prophet. Weber seemed to favor charismatic authority, and spent a good deal of time discussing it. Thus,
Weber's favor for charismatic authority was particularly strong, especially in focusing on what happened
to it with the death or decline of a charismatic leader. Charismatic authority is "routinized" in a number
of ways according to Weber: orders are traditionalized, the staff or followers change into legal or
"estate-like" (traditional) staff, or the meaning of charisma itself may undergo change. Charismatic
authority is often the most lasting of regimes because the leader is seen as infallible and any action
against him will be seen as a crime against the state. Charismatic leaders eventually develop a cult of
personality often not by their own doing. Power is legitimized on the basis of a leader's exceptional
personal qualities or the demonstration of extraordinary insight and accomplishment, which inspire
loyalty and obedience from followers.
3. Legal-rational authority is empowered by a formalistic belief in the content of the law (legal) or
natural law (rationality). Obedience is not given to a specific individual leader -- whether traditional or
charismatic -- but a set of uniform principles. Weber thought the best example of legal-rational authority
was a bureaucracy (political or economic). This form of authority is frequently found in the modern
state, city governments, private and public corporations, and various voluntary associations. In fact,
Weber stated that the "development of the modern state is identical indeed with that of modern
officialdom and bureaucratic organizations just as the development of modem capitalism is identical
with the increasing bureaucratization of economic enterprise. However, no authority structure, Weber
wrote, could actually be exclusively bureaucratic, because some positions would be held by a variety of
charismatic leaders. He also stated that non-bureaucratic legal authority could be found in organizations
that have rotating office holders, such as "Parliamentary and committee administration and all sorts of
collegiate and administrative bodies". Weber's feelings about bureaucracies sometimes came through in
his writing and he tended to view the move towards legal-rational authority as a move into an "iron
cage".

The three authority types may be re-enforced by traits that differentiate them from other types.
Traditional authority is impersonal (unlike charisma) and non-rational (unlike legal-rational).
Charismatic authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and non-rational (again, unlike legal-rational).

Legal-rational authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and impersonal (unlike charisma). Conversely,
According to Peter Blau, an American sociologist, the traditional is undynamic, charisma is personal,
and legal-rational is rational. The probability of retaining a particular type of authority possibly will
depend on the power of that authority system to maintain the traits that create its unique and eliminate
the traits that make it more favorable to a new authority type.

Particular authority types can drop their power to -- and therefore switching into -- other types by some
of the subsequent ways. Revolutionary ideals can be advocated by a charismatic leader or the rational
pursuit of ends via abstract formal principles can both weaken traditional authority. Revolutionary
charismatic movements can be crystallized into a traditional order or bureaucratized into a rational
formal organization. Finally, the irrational forces and powers of tradition or charisma can weaken legal-
rational authority.

Legitimization
In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a
regime. Whereas "authority" denotes a specific position in an established government, the term
"legitimacy" denotes a system of government. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for
governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political
systems where this is not the case, unpopular regimes survive because they are considered legitimate by
a small, influential etc. In Chinese political philosophy, since the historical period of the Zhou Dynasty
(1040-200 BC), the political legitimacy of a ruler and government was derived from the Mandate of
Heaven, and unjust rulers who lost said mandate lost the right to rule the people.

In moral philosophy, the term "legitimacy" is often positively interpreted as the normative status
conferred by a governed people upon their governors' institutions, offices, and actions, based upon the
belief that their government's actions are appropriate uses of power by a legally constituted government.
The Enlightenment-era British social philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) said that political legitimacy
derives from popular explicit and implicit consent: "The argument of the Second] Treatise is that the
government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed." The German
political philosopher DolfSternberger said that "legitimacy is the foundation of such governmental
exercised, both with a consciousness on the government's part that it has a right to govern, and with
some recognition by the governed of that right." The American political sociologist Seymour Martin
Lipset said that legitimacy also "involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the
belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society. The
American political scientist Robert A. Dahl explained legitimacy as a reservoir; so long as the water is at
a given level, political stability is maintained. If it falls below the required level, political legitimacy is
endangered.

Types of Legitimacy

Legitimacy is "a value whereby something or someone is recognized and accepted as right and proper".
In political science, legitimacy usually is understood as the popular acceptance and recognition by the
public of the authority of a governing regime, whereby authority has political power through consent
and mutual understanding, not coercion. The three types of political legitimacy described by German
sociologist Max Weber are traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal:

Traditional legitimacy derives from societal customs and habits that emphasize the history of the
authority of tradition. Traditionalists understand this form of rule as historically accepted, hence its
continuity, because it is the way society has always been. Therefore, the institutions of traditional
government usually are historically continuous, as in monarchy and tribalism.

Charismatic legitimacy derives from the ideas and personal charisma of the leader, a person whose
authoritative persona charms and psychologically dominates the people of the society to agreement with
the government's regime and rule. A charismatic government usually features weak political and
administrative institutions, because they derive authority from the persona of the leader, and usually
disappear without the leader in power. However, if the charismatic leader has a successor, a government
derived from charismatic legitimacy might continue.
Rational-legal legitimacy derives from a system of institutional procedure, where government
institutions establish and enforce law and order in the public interest. Therefore, it is through public trust
that the government will abide by the law that confers rational-legal legitimacy.

EDEN
Sources of Legitimacy

Max Weber proposed that societies behave cyclically in governing themselves with different types of
governmental legitimacy; that democracy was unnecessary for establishing legitimacy, a condition that
can be established with codified laws, customs, and cultural principles, not by means of popular
suffrage; and that a society might decide to revert from the legitimate government of a rational-legal
authority to the charismatic government of a leader; Max Weber e.g., the Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler,
Fascist Italy under Benito (societies are politically cyclical) Mussolini, and Fascist Spain under General
Francisco Franco.

The French political scientist Mattei Dogan's contemporary interpretation of Weber's types of political
legitimacy (traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational) proposes that they are conceptually insufficient
to comprehend the complex relationships that constitute a legitimate political system in the twenty-first
century. Moreover, Dogan proposed that traditional authority and charismatic authority are obsolete as
forms of contemporary government (e.g., the Islamic Republic of Iran rules by means of the priestly
Koranic interpretations by the Ayatollah Khomeini); that traditional authority has disappeared in the
Middle East; and that the rule proving exceptions are Islamic Iran and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the
third Weber type of political legitimacy, rational-legal authority, exists in so many permutations that no
longer allow it to be limited as a type of legitimate authority.
ANERAH

Forms of Legitimate Government

Communism: The legitimacy of a Communist state derives from having won a civil war, a revolution,
or from having won an election, such as the Presidency of Salude Fresidency of Salvador Allende
(1070-73) in Chile: thus, the actions of the Communist government are legitimate, authorized by the
people. In the early twentieth century, Communist parties based the arguments supporting the legitimacy
of their rule and government upon the scientific nature of Marxism.

Constitutionalism: The modern political concept of constitutionalism establishes the law as supreme
over the private will, by integrating nationalism, democracy, and limited government. The political
legitimacy of constitutionalism derives from popular belief and acceptance that the actions of the
government are legitimate because they done by the law codified in the political constitution. The
political scientist Carl Joachim Friedrich (1901-84) said that, in dividing political power among the
organs of government, constitutional law effectively restrains the actions of the government.

Democracy: In a democracy, government legitimacy derives from the popular perception that the
elected government abides by democratic principles in governing, and thus is legally accountable to its
people.

Fascism: In the 1920s and the 1930s, Fascism based its political legitimacy upon the arguments of
traditional authority. Fascism is a political system headed by a dictator in which the government contrals
the lives of the people and opposition is not permitted.

Monarchy: In a monarchy, the divine right of kings establishes the political legitimacy of the rule of the
monarch (king or queen); legitimacy also derives from the popular. perception (tradition and custom)
and acceptance of the monarch as the rightful ruler of nation and country. Contemporarily, such divine-
right legitimacy is manifest in the absolute of the House of Saud (est. 1744), a royal family who has
ruled and governed Saudi Arabia since the 18th century. Moreover, constitutional monarchy is a variant
form of monarchic political legitimacy which combines traditional authority and legalrational authority,
by which means the monarch maintains nationalist unity (one people) and democratic administration (a
political constitution)
Politics Of Kinship (Political Dynasty, Alliances)

Political Dynasties in the Philippines

 POLITICAL DYNASTIES
 generally, refer to families whose members are involved in politics.
 In the Philippines, political dynasties can be seen in families that have been part of the
government for several generations. This can occur in two ways. One way is for members of a
family to occupy a certain government position in every term. If a politician's term is over and a
relative of that politician gets elected for the same position, that family can be labeled as a
political dynasty.
 Political dynasties also have extra incentive to develop their own jurisdictions. Based on the
notion of "Roving Bandits vs. Stationary Bandits", dynastic politicians are more likely to pursue
developments since they expect to be in office longer. Unlike non-dynastic politicians who have
less incentive to develop due to their limited terms, political dynasties can gain benefits either
directly or indirectly through their relatives.

Philippine Laws

 The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines states in Article II Section 26, "The State shall
guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may
be defined by law."

 Despite this provision in the Constitution, no law has been passed nor any action has been made
regarding the prohibition of political dynasties. The nearest mention of political dynasties in
Philippine law can be found in Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code, where Book
1, Title Two, Chapter 1, Section 43 states the term limit of any local government official but
does not include any limitations in terms of family relations:

(a) The term of office of all local elective officials elected after the effectivity of this Code shall be three
(3) years, starting from noon of June 30, 1992 or such date as may be provided for by law, except that of
elective barangay officials: Provided, That all local officials first elected during the local elections
immediately following the ratification of the 1987 Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.
 
(b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in
the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official concerned was elected.
 
(c) The term of office of barangay officials and members of the sangguniang kabataan shall be for three
(3) years, which shall begin after the regular election of barangay officials on the second Monday of
May 1994.

Political Alliance

A political alliance also referred to as a political coalition or political bloc, is an agreement for
cooperation between different political parties on common political agenda, often for purposes of
contesting an election. They intend to mutually benefit from the alliance by collectively clearing
election thresholds, taking advantage of the voting system, or forming a government after elections. A
coalition government is formed when a political alliance comes to power, or when only a plurality (not a
majority) has been reached and several parties must work together to govern. One of the peculiarities of
such a method of governance results in having Cabinet Secretaries without Portfolio.
Political and Leadership Structures

 POLITICAL ORGANIZATION
The government or the political institution is another institution that is universal. A
political institution is defined as the system of norms, values, and roles responsible for maintaining
social order in society. The following are the aspects of maintaining social order:

1. Creating formal norms

- it is the political institution that has created formal norms or laws that guide our behavior.
There are three types of laws depending on their origins, namely:

a. Constitutional laws – These are formalized norms that emerge in the constitution, the written plan of
any government. The constitution describes the broad duties of the government as well as the right and
responsibilities of every citizen.
b. Statutory laws – These are laws that have been enacted by a legislative body of the government like
Congress, and City Councils. A curfew hour for minors is an example.
c. Common laws – These are unwritten laws built over centuries on local custom and precedent and
further developed by judicial decisions. The law originated from the judicial branch of government but
not from the legislative branch. Common laws become "common" or part of the tradition of a country.

2. Applying sanctions
- It is the responsibility of a political institution to apply sanctions to those who fail
to follow or obey certain norms.

3. Settling disputes among individuals

- It is also one of the duties of political institutions. If you believe that your best friend
gets your money from your bag, you can sue him in court. A judge will decide on the validity of the
case. If you are right on your accusation, your best friend can get a jail term and will be obliged to return
the money he got from you.
Some types of disputes may include the following:

• inheritances
• divorce
• property rights
• personal liability
• bankruptcy

4. Settling disputes between nations

- Political institution tries to resolve disputes between nations as well. This is done to
evade wars between nations, Representatives from both nations will meet and settle the problem
peacefully, but sometimes no agreement is arrived at. This happened in the dispute between the
Philippines and China on the islands in the West Philippine Sea. Because the two countries failed to
settle the problem between themselves, the Philippines filed a case with the Permanent Court for
Arbitration under the United Nations.

 BANDS
  A band is usually a very small, oftentimes nomadic group that is connected by family ties
and is politically independent. Moving from place to place, usually in search of food, bands are most
often made up of hunter-gatherers.
  TRIBES
 
• A tribe is somewhat more complex than a band. As the population size increases with a shift in
subsistence patterns from foraging to horticulture or pastoralism, kinship ties and friendship are
no longer sufficient to hold society together. This is especially the case when there are hundreds
of people and multiple communities.
• Tribes also are characteristic of some large equestrian and rich aquatic foraging societies.
Regardless of the subsistence base, new forms of societal integration become a necessity in
tribes to settle disputes and prevent the society from disintegrating.

 CHIEFDOMS

• Chiefdoms are similar to bands and tribes in being mostly classless societies. However,
chiefdoms differ in having a more or less permanent, full-time leader with real authority to make
major decisions for their societies.
• The larger population of chiefdoms generally means that the people have less in common than
do those in the smaller societies of bands and tribes. Disputes inevitably arise that cannot be
settled by informal means based on kinship and friendship.
• An important advantage that chiefdoms have over band and tribal level societies when conflicts
arise between them is that chiefdoms are usually more effective in warfare. They have larger
populations so they can assemble larger military forces. In addition, the chief can provide
centralized direction which potentially allows more decisive action.

 STATES

State-level political systems first appeared in societies with large-scale intensive agriculture. They began
as chiefdoms and then evolved into more centralized, authoritarian kingdoms when their populations
grew into tens of thousands of people.

These new political systems had a pyramid of authority with a small hereditary elite class at the top
headed by a king and royal family. At the bottom were the commoners who were the bulk of society.
They were mostly the food-producing farmers upon whom the entire society ultimately depended.

AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY

• The influential sociologist Max Weber proposed a theory of authority that included three types.
He pioneered a path towards understanding how authority is legitimated as a belief system. His
essay "The three types of legitimate rule" translated into English and published posthumously in
1958, is the clearest explanation of his theory.
• There are two fundamental components of order, norms, and authority.
 o According to Weber, there are three types of authority, namely: traditional, charismatic and
legal-rational authority

o AUTHORITY TYPES

 Traditional authority - is legitimated by the sanctity of tradition. The ability and right to rule
are passed down, often through heredity.
 Charismatic authority - is found in a leader whose mission and vision inspire others. It is based
on the perceived extraordinary characteristics of an individual.
 Legal-rational authority - is empowered by a formalistic belief in the content of the law (legal)
or natural law (rationality).
 The three authority types may be reinforced by traits that differentiate them from other types.
Traditional authority is impersonal (unlike charisma) and non-rational (unlike legal-rational).
Charismatic authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and non-rational (again, unlike legal-
rational). Legal-rational authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and impersonal (unlike
charisma).

 LEGITIMIZATION
• In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law
or a regime.
• Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government
will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case,
unpopular regimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential etc.

 LEGITIMACY
- is "a value whereby something or someone is recognized and accepted as right and
proper". In political science, legitimacy usually is understood as the popular acceptance and recognition
by the public of the authority of a governing regime, whereby authority has political power through
consent and mutual understanding, not coercion.
The three types of political legitimacy described by German sociologist Max Weber are traditional,
charismatic, and rational-legal:

 TYPES OF LEGITIMACY

 Traditional legitimacy derives from societal customs and habits that emphasize the history of
the authority of tradition.  
 Charismatic legitimacy derives from the ideas and personal charisma of the leader, a person
whose authoritative persona charms and psychologically dominates the people of the society to
agreement with the government's regime and rule.
 Rational-legal legitimacy derives from a system of institutional procedure, where government
institutions establish and enforce law and order in the public interest.

 SOURCES OF LEGITIMACY

 Max Weber proposed that societies behave cyclically in governing themselves with
different types of governmental legitimacy; that democracy was unnecessary for
establishing legitimacy, a condition that can be established with codified laws, customs,
and cultural principles, not by means of popular suffrage; and that society might decide to
revert from the legitimate government of a rational-legal authority to the charismatic
government of a leader.
  The French political scientist Mattei Dogan's contemporary interpretation of Weber's types of
political legitimacy (traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational) proposes that they are
conceptually insufficient to comprehend the complex relationships that constitute a legitimate
political system in the twenty-first century. Moreover, Dogan proposed that traditional authority
and charismatic authority are obsolete as forms of contemporary government (e.g., the Islamic
Republic of Iran rules by means of the priestly Koranic interpretations by the Ayatollah
Khomeini); that traditional authority has disappeared in the Middle East; and that the rule
proving exceptions are Islamic Iran and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the third Weber type of
political legitimacy, rational-legal authority, exists in so many permutations that no longer allow
it to be limited as a type of legitimate authority.

 FORMS OF LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT

 Communism: The legitimacy of a Communist state derives from having won a civil war, a
revolution, or from having won an election, such as the Presidency of Salude Presidency of
Salvador Allende (1070-73) in Chile: thus, the actions of the Communist government are
legitimate, authorized by the people. In the early twentieth century, Communist parties based the
arguments supporting the legitimacy of their rule and government upon the scientific nature of
Marxism.
 Constitutionalism: The modern political concept of constitutionalism establishes the law as
supreme over the private will, by integrating nationalism, democracy, and limited government.
The political legitimacy of constitutionalism derives from popular belief and acceptance that the
actions of the government are legitimate because they have been done by the law codified in the
political constitution.
 
 Democracy: In a democracy, government legitimacy derives from the popular perception that
the elected government abides by democratic principles in governing, and thus is legally
accountable to its people.
 Fascism: In the 1920s and the 1930s, Fascism based its political legitimacy upon the arguments
of traditional authority. Fascism is a political system headed by a dictator in which the
government controls the lives of the people and opposition is not permitted.
 Monarchy: In a monarchy, the divine right of kings establishes the political legitimacy of the
rule of the monarch (king or queen); legitimacy also derives from the popular. perception
(tradition and custom) and acceptance of the monarch as the rightful ruler of the nation and
country. Contemporarily, such divine-right legitimacy is manifest in the absolute of the House of
Saud (est. 1744), a royal family that has ruled and governed Saudi Arabia since the 18th century.
Traditional authority (also called “traditional domination”) is when a person or organization has power
or influence derived from long-standing customs, beliefs, or traditions.

Ang tradisyunal na awtoridad (tinatawag ding "tradisyonal na dominasyon") ay kapag ang isang tao o
organisasyon ay may kapangyarihan o impluwensya na nagmula sa matagal nang kaugalian, paniniwala,
o tradisyon.

A good example of a traditional authority system would be a monarchy. Most governments throughout
history have led according to this form of authority. In this form of domination, subordinates accept the
type of authority. They refrain from challenging the traditional rights of a powerful group or individual.

Ang isang magandang halimbawa ng isang tradisyunal na sistema ng awtoridad ay isang monarkiya.
Karamihan sa mga pamahalaan sa buong kasaysayan ay nanguna ayon sa ganitong uri ng awtoridad. Sa
ganitong anyo ng dominasyon, tinatanggap ng mga subordinates ang uri ng awtoridad. Pinipigilan
nilang hamunin ang mga tradisyonal na karapatan ng isang makapangyarihang grupo o indibidwal.

Charismatic authority is power legitimized on the basis of a leader's exceptional personal qualities, or
the demonstration of extraordinary insight and accomplishment, which inspire loyalty and obedience
from followers.

Ang karismatikong awtoridad ay kapangyarihang ginawang lehitimo batay sa mga natatanging personal
na katangian ng isang pinuno, o ang pagpapakita ng pambihirang pananaw at tagumpay, na nagbibigay
inspirasyon sa katapatan at pagsunod mula sa mga tagasunod.

Social movements. …with his concept of “charismatic leadership.” Charismatic leaders, by virtue of the
extraordinary personal qualities attributed to them, are able to create a group of followers who are
willing to break established rules. Examples include Jesus, Napoleon, and Hitler.

Mga kilusang panlipunan. …sa kanyang konsepto ng “charismatic leadership.” Ang mga pinunong
charismatic, sa pamamagitan ng pambihirang mga personal na katangiang iniuugnay sa kanila, ay
nakakagawa ng isang grupo ng mga tagasunod na handang lumabag sa mga itinatag na panuntunan.
Kasama sa mga halimbawa sina Jesus, Napoleon, at Hitler.

Rational-legal authority is a form of leadership in which the authority of an organization or a ruling
regime is largely tied to legal rationality, legal legitimacy, and bureaucracy. It is the second of Max
Weber 's tripartite classification of authority. Rational-legal authority is the basis of modern
democracies. Examples of this type of authority: officials elected by voters, rules that are in the
constitution, or policies that are written in a formal document.

Ang rational-legal na awtoridad ay isang anyo ng pamumuno kung saan ang awtoridad ng isang
organisasyon o isang naghaharing rehimen ay higit na nakatali sa legal na rasyonalidad, legal na
pagiging lehitimo, at burukrasya. Ito ang pangalawa sa tripartite classification ng awtoridad ni Max
Weber. Ang rational-legal na awtoridad ang batayan ng mga modernong demokrasya. Mga halimbawa
ng ganitong uri ng awtoridad: mga opisyal na inihalal ng mga botante, mga patakaran na nasa
konstitusyon, o mga patakarang nakasulat sa isang pormal na dokumento.

What legitimation means?

the act or result of making something legitimate (= considered reasonable and acceptable): Globalization
requires democratic legitimation. Legitimation is the process of allowing the child, whose parents were
not married at the time of birth, but has a subsequent marriage, to use the surname of the father.

ang gawa o resulta ng paggawa ng isang bagay na lehitimo (= itinuturing na makatwiran at katanggap-
tanggap): Ang globalisasyon ay nangangailangan ng demokratikong lehitimo. Ang lehitimo ay ang
proseso ng pagpapahintulot sa bata, na ang mga magulang ay hindi kasal sa oras ng kapanganakan,
ngunit may kasunod na kasal, na gamitin ang apelyido ng ama.

Legitimacy is commonly defined in political science and sociology as the belief that a rule, institution,
or leader has the right to govern. It is a judgment by an individual about the rightfulness of a
hierarchy between rule or ruler and its subject and about the subordinate's obligations toward the rule or
ruler.

Ang pagiging lehitimo ay karaniwang binibigyang kahulugan sa agham pampulitika at sosyolohiya

bilang paniniwala na ang isang tuntunin, institusyon, o pinuno ay may karapatang mamahala. Ito ay
isang paghatol ng isang indibidwal tungkol sa pagiging marapat ng isang hierarchy sa pagitan ng
panuntunan o pinuno at ang paksa nito at tungkol sa mga obligasyon ng nasasakupan sa panuntunan o
pinuno.

Traditional legitimacy derives from societal custom and habit that emphasize the history of the
authority of tradition. 

Ang tradisyonal na pagiging lehitimo ay nagmula sa kaugalian at gawi ng lipunan na nagbibigay-diin sa

kasaysayan ng awtoridad ng tradisyon.

What is rational-legal legitimacy?

Under rational-legal authority, legitimacy is seen as coming from a legal order and the laws that have
been enacted in it (see also natural law and legal positivism).

Sa ilalim ng rational-legal na awtoridad, ang pagiging lehitimo ay nakikita na nagmumula sa isang legal
na kautusan at ang mga batas na ipinatupad dito (tingnan din ang natural na batas at legal na positivism).
POLITICAL DYNASTY SA PILIPINAS

Paano nga ba magkakaroon ng serbisyong totoo kung political dynasty ang umiiral sa gobyerno? Ayon
sa Artikulo II Seksiyon 6 ng ating konstitusyon na ginagarantiya ng estado ang pantay na oportunidad at
pagkakataon para sa serbisyo publiko at pinagbabawal nito ang dinastiyang politikal na batay sa
pagkakahulugang inilahad ng batas. Ang Political Dynasty ay tumutukoy sa paghawak ng
kapangyarihan ng mga magkakamag-anak sa iba’t ibang sangay ng pamahalaan. Umiiral ito sa ating
lipunan dahil nagsasaad ito ng ninanais ng ating pamahalaan sa pagpapatupad at pagtatalaga ng
posisyon. Sa orihinal na konteksto, ang salitang “dynasty” ay nangangahulugang pamumuno o
pampolitika at pang-ekonomiyang kapangyarihang namamana o naipapasa sa loob lamang ng isang
pamilya sa panahon ng pyudalismo. Successor o tagapagmana ang tawag sa “sunod sa linya” ng
pamumuno sa kaharian o imperyo. Walang eleksyong kinakailangan, kundi ang “pyudal na pribilehiyo”
lamang ng dugo (blood line) na nagtitiyak ng kapangyarihan ng pyudal na pamilya ang kailangan.
Matagal ng umiiral ang political dynasty sa pamahalaan ng bansang Pilipinas. Ayon sa artikulong
isinulat ni Atty. Sison, isa sa sanhi ng political dynasty ay ang pagbili ng boto na kung saan ginagawa ng
mga politiko na naghahangad ng kapangyarihan. Ang pagtanaw ng utang na loob sa hindi magandang
pamamaraan ay isa rin sa sanhi nito. Ibinoboto lamang ang isang politiko dahil sa pagtanaw ng utang na
loob sa kamag-anak ng opisyal ng pamahalaan. Hindi magandang epekto ito sa ating pamahalaan at
panghuli, kawalan ng batas na magbabawal sa pag-iral ng political dynasty. Kung tutuusin, mayroong
nakahain na panukala ukol sa Anti political dynasty ngunit hindi pa naaprubahan ng mga mambabatas.
Maraming hindi magandang epekto ng political dynasty sa ating lipunan at kapakanan ng mga
mamamayan. Kapag ang isang pamilya ay matagal nang namamahala sa isang lugar hindi na nila
nabibigyan ng pansin ang kanilang responsibilidad sa halip inuuna na nila ang kanilang pansariling
interes. Kaya naman malaki ang nagiging epekto nito sa isang lugar. Nagreresulta rin sa korupsyon ang
political dynasty dahil napagtatakpan ang hindi magandang gawain ng bawat miyembro na nasa
posisyon. Hindi rin naitataguyod ang kapakanan ng mas nakararami. Ang mas nabibigyan ng tuon ay
iilan lamang. Kapag may importanteng desisyon na dapat ipatupad ay hindi naisasagawa dahil sa
mayroong interes na pinoprotektahan. Naihahalal naman ang kahit sino kahit walang kakayahan na
mamuno sa kadahilanang siya ay miyembro ng pamilya, ang kapalit nito ay hindi maayos ang nagiging
kontribusyon sa sangay na kinabibilangan ng nahalal. Panghuli, bumabagal ang pag-unlad ng bansa
kapag umiral ang political dynasty. Ang maimpluwensiyang pamilyang nagkokontrol sa atin ay marapat
na tapusin ang posisyong hindi karapat-dapat. Ito ang makpipigil sa pag-unlad ng bansa kung hindi ito
wawakasan. Tunay na ang political dynasty ay nagnanais pamang na mapanatiling kilala ang kanilang
pangalan upang patuloy na mahalal sa pagdating ng mga susunod na henerasyon. Desisyon ng bawat isa
ang siyang magpapabago sa bansa, alamin ang nararapat at makabubuti para sa nakararami.

Bands A band is usually a very small, oftentimes nomadic, group that is connected by family ties and is
politically independent. ay karaniwang isang napakaliit, kadalasang nomadic, grupo na konektado sa
pamamagitan ng mga ugnayan ng pamilya at independyente sa pulitika. Nomadic meaning moving from
place to place, usually in search of food, bands are most often made up of hunter-gatherers. Ang ibig
sabihin ng salitang Nomadic ay paglipat mula sa isang lugar patungo sa isang lugar, ang kadalasan na
dahilan nito ay paghahanap ng pagkain, ang mga bands ay kadalasang binubuo ng mga mangangaso-
gatherer. Due to their small size and their tendency to move around, bands usually have little to no
formal leadership. Dahil sa kanilang maliit na sukat at sa kanilang pagkahilig sa paglipat-lipat ng lugar,
ang mga bands ay karaniwang may kaunti o walang pormal na pamumuno. In other words, when to
move and when to stay is usually based on group consensus rather than one governing official calling
the shots. kung kailan lilipat at kung kailan mananatili ay karaniwang nakabatay sa pinagkasunduan ng
grupo sa halip na isang opisyal na namamahala ang tumatawag ng mga shot. With this, bands are
usually referred to as being egalitarian societies, societies in which all persons of the same age and
gender are seen as equals. ang mga bands ay karaniwang tinutukoy bilang mga egalitarian
(paniniwalang ang lahat ng tao ay pantay na mahalaga at dapat magkaroon ng parehong karapatan at
pagkakataon sa buhay) na lipunan, mga lipunan kung saan ang lahat ng mga tao sa parehong edad at
kasarian ay nakikita bilang pantay. this doesn't mean that men and women are always equal, it more
means that men are equal to men and women are equal to women. Pero hindi ito nangangahulugan na
ang mga lalaki at babae ay palaging pantay, mas nangangahulugan na ang mga lalaki ay katumbas ng
mga lalaki at ang mga babae ay katumbas ng mga kababaihan. Ang mga foraging bands ay egalitarian sa
mga tuntunin ng kapangyarihan at awtoridad. Wala silang pormal na batas, ngunit mayroon silang mga
paraan ng panlipunang kontrol at pag-aayos ng mga hindi pagkakaunawaan. Due to the small size of
bands and to the fact that everyone is involved in the lives of everyone else, quarrels between members
often erupt. These quarrels split the band along family lines. Dahil sa liit ng mga banda at sa
katotohanang lahat ng tao ay may kinalaman sa buhay ng iba, madalas na pumuputok ang mga away sa
pagitan ng mga miyembro. Ang mga pag-aaway na ito ay naghiwalay sa bands ayon sa mga linya ng
pamilya. So, the principle goal of politics in most bands is to make sure that people get along with each
other. This is not easy to achieve, given human nature. Members may quarrel over food, compete for the
same woman or man, or fight over a space. Kaya, ang pangunahing layunin ng pulitika sa karamihan ng
mga banda ay tiyaking magkakasundo ang mga tao sa isa't isa. Hindi ito madaling makamit, dahil sa
kalikasan ng tao. Maaaring mag-away ang mga miyembro dahil sa pagkain, makipagkumpitensya para
sa parehong babae o lalaki, o mag-away tungkol sa isang espasyo. As the number of people in a band
increases, the potential for conflicts also rises. Some mem bers may decide to leave the band and form
their own band. Richard Lee refers to this process as social velocity. Habang dumarami ang bilang ng
mga tao sa isang banda, tumataas din ang potensyal para sa mga salungatan. Maaaring magdesisyon ang
ilang miyembro na umalis sa banda at bumuo ng sarili nilang bands. Tinutukoy ni Richard Lee ang
prosesong ito bilang social velocity.