Second of a four-part series
THE first part of this series last week argued that the 39-year failure to implement the constitutional ban on political dynasties (polidyn) is not a matter of legislative delay, but a structural design rooted in a centuries-old “operating system” of patronage (polpat) and clan-based hierarchy. By tracing the evolution from pre-colonial datus to a unitary-presidential system that incentivizes succession by blood, Congress — composed largely of the dynasties themselves — is fundamentally incapable of regulating its own power. This systemic entrenchment suggests that the government does not merely fail to act due to incompetence but is intentionally structured to serve the interests of those who control it.
For too long, we have diagnosed the Philippines as a “weak state,” fragile, chaotic and incapable. We have internalized this “weakness” as the ultimate apology for every collapsed reform and perennial crisis. But this diagnosis is false. The Philippines is far from weak. A weak state fails because it lacks capacity; a captured state is something far more sinister. Its capacity hasn’t been lost — it has been hijacked and rebuilt for private extraction by the very leaders entrusted with the public’s welfare. A weak state cannot act; a captured state acts with lethal precision, just never for the public good.
Once this distinction is understood, our chronic dysfunction stops looking like an accident and starts looking like a strategy. The system isn’t broken; it is operating exactly as intended.
The myth of weakness
The “weak state” narrative is a convenient myth. It allows leaders to evade responsibility, technocrats to rationalize failure, and citizens to internalize blame. It transforms structural capture into cultural defect. But weakness is erratic, while our failures are remarkably consistent. The state is only “weak” when asked to serve the many; it is incredibly “strong” and competent when shielding elite monopolies or crushing competition.
State capture is our true operating system. It manifests in selective enforcement (law as iron for the poor, rubber for the rich), uneven delivery based on loyalty, and the absorption of dissent. These are not glitches. They are the features of a system designed to ensure that the public remains a spectator in its own governance while private interests thrive behind the wheel.
The architecture of capture
Capture persists because it is architectural — layered, adaptive, self-reinforcing. It rests on four pillars.
– Dynastic gatekeeping — the rise of political dynasties (polidyn)
Polidyn do not merely win elections; they control entry points. They shape who can run, who can compete, and who must concede before the race begins. Elections become contests within cartels. The spectacle of competition remains; the perimeter is fixed. Here, the family becomes the state. The problem is not simply that dynasties exist. When one family dominates executive, the legislative and local affairs, public office merges with private interests.
– Bureaucratic veto points
Key agencies possess built-in choke points — signatures, reviews, and strategic delays — that dictate outcomes. A single withheld clearance can freeze a billion-peso project or paralyze a competitor. These “veto players” are the hidden architects of a structural defense, not mere inefficiency. The bureaucracy is strategically positioned; it isn’t universally corrupt, but it is meticulously designed for rent-seeking and regulatory capture. This is the machinery of a state that hasn’t failed but has been successfully occupied.
– Regulatory capture and market cartels
Sector after sector reveals the same geometry: energy, telecommunications, transport, agriculture, water. A handful of dominant players influence regulators and shape the rules that govern them.
Regulators appear to regulate. In reality, they negotiate. Resistance is costly; compliance is rewarded. The result is a polite oligopoly — prices remain high, entry remains difficult, and innovation remains controlled.
This is not market failure. It is market design.
– Informal networks overriding formal rules
Behind every formal process lies an informal one — brokers, intermediaries, political operators who ensure flexibility for those who “belong.” We have modern statutes but feudal outcomes because the informal outranks the formal. The written rule is ceremonial; the unwritten rule is decisive.
The capture tax
The price of capture goes beyond stolen billions — it includes the loss of unrealized potential for the Philippines. When transport cartels block modernization, workers lose three hours daily to traffic. When agricultural cartels choke supply, children lose essential nutrition. When telecom duopolies throttle infrastructure, students are exiled from the digital age.
These aren’t mere inconveniences; they are systematic thefts of time, health and opportunity. A captured state inflates the cost of living while paralyzing upward mobility, forcing the middle class into a permanent state of endurance rather than advancement. This is the ultimate toll of a system designed to serve the few at the expense of the future of the many.
Why reforms stall
Every administration promises change, yet each eventually confronts the same unyielding architecture. Capture defends itself through four mechanisms of attrition:
– Absorption: Reformers are given incentives to join the status quo.
– Neutralization: Policies are diluted until they are toothless and harmless.
– Delay: Implementation is stretched across decades, far beyond political cycles.
– Punishment: Those who persist in genuine opposition face harassment or isolation.
Even well-intentioned leaders discover that the system is stronger than individual resolve. The system does not openly confront reform; it quietly wears it down until the status quo is restored.
Naming the system
Citizens experience the consequences daily: congestion that never eases, prices that never fall, and services that never stabilize. Yet invisibility is a strategic asset of the captured state. It survives by making its failures appear natural — blaming cultural flaws or national temperament. We are told we lack discipline, that we are inherently corrupt, or that chaos is our character.
These narratives are anesthetics. They shift blame downward and normalize mediocrity. Expectations are lowered until minimal functionality feels like progress. The tragedy is not that the state is weak; the tragedy is that we have been persuaded to accept capture as destiny.
Naming the system is the first act of liberation. Capture is not fate; it is a design, and designs can be dismantled. But one cannot treat capture as weakness. You cannot “train” a bureaucracy paid to obstruct, nor can you “fund” an agency structured as a choke point. The first step is clarity: Stop asking why the state is slow and start asking who benefits from the delay. Stop asking why prices are high and start asking who profits from the scarcity.
Clarity reveals beneficiaries, and beneficiaries reveal power. But clarity alone is insufficient because capture fuses wealth and authority into a self-perpetuating loop. Wealth finances power, and power protects wealth. This convergence is more entrenched than simple dynasty and more resilient than isolated oligarchy. It is the merger of capital and coercion, of market share and ballot share.
When the polidyn evolves beyond gatekeeping and becomes structural sovereignty — when the same names dominate the boardroom and the ballot box, the regulator and the regulated — the circle closes. This merger of wealth and power into a single, unbreakable unit has a name.
Next week: Oligopolidyn: When wealth and power become one.
000
-
font size
decrease font size
increase font size