No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Political Rituals in Developing Nations: The case of the Philippines
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011
Extract
Systematic manipulation of symbols is present to varying degrees in all political processes. Such rituals may or may not suggest further substantive action, and when they do, such action may or may not be forthcoming. The term ritualism (or ritualistic behaviour) will here refer to activity which can be subsumed under the general concept of formalism. While some political scientsists describe formalism as a concern to establish an institution rather than to ensure its functioning, our use of the term is less specific: both structure and function may be symbols and parts of a ritual which, if suggesting further activity which is not forthcoming, constitutes ritualism.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1971
References
1 Durkheim, Emile, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1968), p. 356.Google Scholar
2 For a discussion of political symbolism in contemporary American society, see Edelman, Murray, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964).Google Scholar
3 Durkheim, op. cit., p. 359.
4 Lasswell, Harold D., Psychopathology and Politics (New York: The Viking Press, 1962), p. 195.Google Scholar See also Harsanyi, John C., “Rational-Choice Models of Political Behavior vs. Functionalist and Conformist Theories”, World Politics, Vol. XXI, No. 4 (July, 1969), p. 525Google Scholaret passim.
5 Turner, Victor, “Mukanda: The Politics of a Non-Political Ritual”, in Swartz, Marc J. (ed.), Local-Level Politics (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1968), pp. 135–150.Google Scholar
6 Duncan, Hugh Dalziel, “The Development of Durkheim's Concept of Ritual and the Problem of Social Disrelationship”, in Wolff, Kurt H. (ed.), Emile Durkheim, 1858–1917. A Collection of Essays with Translations and a Bibliography (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1960), p. 115, n. 18.Google Scholar
7 Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Eisenstadt, S.N., “Breakdowns of Modernization”, in Finkle, J.L. and Gable, R.W., Political Development and Social Change (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966).Google Scholar
8 A recent case study with good reference to the general literature on the subject is given by Mezey, Michael L., The Functions of a Minimal Legislature: Role Perceptions of Thai Legislators. Paper delivered at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 8–12, 1970.Google Scholar
9 Cf. the attitude of the Alliance Party in Malaysia, particularly before the uprisings in May 1969.
10 Rothchild, Donald, “Ethnicity and Conflict Resolution”, World Politics, Vol. XXII, No. 4. (July, 1970)Google Scholar, discusses these general principles in an African setting.
11 Dante C. Simbulan. The Political Elite in Contemporary Philippines. Paper delivered at the Australasian Political Science Association Conference, August, 1964, p. 6.
12 Majul, C.A., The Political and Constitutional Ideas of the Philippine Revolution (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1967. Revised edition), pp. 124–125.Google Scholar
13 Majul, C. A., Mabini and the Philippine Revolution (Quezon City: The Dilliman Review, January-December, 1967. University of the Philippine Press), p. 41.Google Scholar
14 Douglas, Donald E., “An Historical Survey of the Land Tenure Situation in the Philippines”, Solidarity, Vol. V, No. 7 (July, 1970).Google Scholar
15 Hayden, Joseph R., The Philippines, A Study in National Development (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1945), pp. 370–371.Google Scholar
16 Steinberg, David Joel, Philippine Collaboration in World War II (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1967), pp. 122–146.Google Scholar
17 Lande, Carl H., “Political Attitudes and Behavior”, in Abueva, Jose V. and Guzman, Raul P. de (eds.). Foundations and Dynamics of Filipino Government (Manila: Bookmark, Inc., 1969), pp. 111–113.Google Scholar
18 Quoted in Valeriano, Napoleon D. and Bohannan, Charles T.R., Counter-guerrilla Operations: The Philippine Experience (New York: Praeger 1962), p. 11.Google Scholar
19 Grossholtz, Jean, Politics in the Philippines (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1965)Google Scholar; Lande, Carl H., Leaders, Factions and Parties: The Structure of Philippine Politics (New Haven: Yale University. South-east Asia Studies. Monograph Series, No. 6, 1965).Google Scholar
20 Jose V. Abueva, “Social Backgrounds and Recruitment of Legislators and Administrators”, in Abueva and Guzman, op. cit., p. 273.
21 David Wurfel, “Individuals and Groups in the Philippine Policy Process”, in Abueva and Guzman, op. cit., pp. 214–217.
22 This is the main theme, at times inadequately substantiated, in Simbulan, Dante C., A Study of the Socio-Economic Elite in Philippine Politics and Government, 1946–1963. Ph.D. Thesis. Australian National University. Unpublished 1966 (?)Google Scholar
23 Cf. Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1965).Google Scholar
24 According to ECAFE's 1968 report, the Philippines had “an impressive rate of economic growth” in the 1950's. The annual average increase of FNP in the 1951–62 period was 6·5% (at constant prices). The growth rate slowed down to an annual average of 5·9% in the 1965–68 period, but the growth rate in the agricultural sector alone increased steadily from an annual average of 5% in the 1951–62 period to 7·9% in the 1965–68 period. United Nations, Economic Survey of Asia and the Far East, 1968, p. 63, pp. 167–8.
25 Quoted in The Philippines Free Press, May 9, June 20, 1970.
26 Corpuz, O.D., The Philippines (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 105.Google Scholar
27 The Philippines Free Press, December 6, 1969: June 21, July 11, 1970.
28 Eufemio P. Patanne, “Political Opinion”, in Abueva and Guzman, op. cit., p. 116.
29 Ledesma, Antionio J., “Land Reform in the Philippines in the Light of Recent Catholic Social Thought”, Solidarity, Vol. 4, No. 4. (April, 1969), p. 95, no. 25.Google Scholar
30 Laquian, Aprodicio A., The City in Nation-Building (Manila: University of the Philippines, 1966), pp. 151–169.Google Scholar
31 The Agbayni Report of a joint House-Senate Committee, quoted in the Philippines Free Press, May 2, 1970.
32 The Philippines Free Press, June 21, 1970.
33 S.J., Frank Lynch (ed.) Four Readings on Philippine Values (Quezon City: Institute of Philippine Culture, 1964).Google Scholar
34 O.D. Corpuz, “Cultural Foundations”, in Abueva and Guzman, op. cit., pp. 16–18.
35 Averch, H. A., Demon, F. R. and Kohler, J. E., A Crisis in Ambiguity: Political and Economic Development in the Philippines (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoted in Far Eastern Economic Review, April 2, 1970.
36 The probable re-election of President Magsaysay, had he lived, can be explained by the dramatic presentation of a reformist image and his actual accomplishments in dealing with the Huks. In 1969, the appallingly bad image and disorganized campaign of the opposition candidate partly accounted for Marcos' re-election. Furthermore, unrest and demonstrations sparked by his inauguration in January 1970 indicated that the election mandate was tenuous.
37 The Philippines Free Press, February 7, 1970.
38 The Agbayni Report, op. cit.
39 New political parties are also hampered by the traditional strength of the two-party system, the pecuniary costs of participation in elections, the high stakes of political contests (patronage, money) which favour a jump on the bandwagon, and flexible membership recruitment by the two major parties. The importance of ideology has been emphasized, however, by ex-Senator Raul S. Manglapus who decries the “ideological vacuum” in political life. Cf. A Christian Social Movement, address delivered before the Rotary Club of Manila, October 19, 1967.
40 This is discussed in general terms by Agpalo, Remigio E., “Revolution and the Philippine Political System”, Solidarity, Vol. 4, No. 7 (July, 1969).Google Scholar
41 Cf. the remarks by Juan Sumulong on the eve of the Sakdalista uprising cited above. A comparison with recent developments in Malaysia suggests itself.
42 Cf. Corpuz, O.D., “Student Power in the Philippines: A Perspective”, Solidarity, Vol. 4, No. 7 (July, 1969).Google Scholar For a comparative study of student power, see Emmerson, Donald K., Students and Politics in Developing Nations (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968).Google Scholar
43 Director, Bureau of Labour Relations, to The Philippines Free Press, May 9, 1970.
44 Reyes, Gracianus R., “Vision for Violence”, Solidarity, Vol. 21, No. 4 (April, 1970)Google Scholar; Roll, Christian, “Revolutionäre Disposition auf den Philippinen”, Aussenpolitik, Vol. 21, No. 7 (July, 1970).Google Scholar
45 The Philippines Free Press, May 2, 1970.
46 Ibid., February 21, 1970.
47 A prominent Nacionalista Senator, Jose W. Dilkno, is one of Tayag's defence counsellors. Diokno is co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the Anti-Subversion Act and views the Tayang trial as a test case.
48 The Philippines Free Press, February 7, 1970.
49 Ibid., June 6, 1970.
50 Far Eastern Economic Review, March 12, 1970.