1. Local Politics and Institutional Reform: Lessons from Indonesia and the Philippines
Carl Marc Lazaro Ramota
Assistant professor, cas, university of the Philippines manila
Graduate student, ncpag, university of the Philippines diliman

2. Indonesia and the philippines
The only two electoral democracies in the region (Stott, 2014)
Genuine rotation of power among competing political parties
Electoral contestation has been largely dominated by political dynasties and oligarchs.

3. Indonesia and the philippines
Both countries were subjected under dictatorships.
Process of political decentralization simply spread institutional corruption and political patronage to multiple levels of governance.

4. Political dynasties
“Those from a family that had previously placed a member in Congress.”
(Dal Bo et al., 2009)
Group of politicians who inherit public office from one of their family members who occupies the office (Ishibashi and Reed, 1992; Asako et al., 2012)
Direct and indirect political power transition involving family members (Thompson, 2012).
One or a small number of families who dominate the power distribution in a particular geographic area (Querubin, 2011)

5. Political dynasties
Elected public officials (governor/ mayor/regent/ legislator) who have a familial connection with an incumbent at the same, lower, or higher level (district to provincial) based on marital relationship, vertical lineage, or extended family.
These officials may be elected in during the tenure of the incumbent or in a subsequent period.

6. Rise of political dynasties
Traditional societies and poor economic conditions under which voters with lower economic status tend to vote for dynastic politicians (Camp, 1976; Mendoza, 2012).
The state’s inability to enforce the law and the national elite’s dependency on local oligarchs provide a fertile ground for local “strongmen” to build their dynasties (McCoy, 2009).

7. Rise of political dynasties
Colonial legacy privileged local landed oligarchs (Querubin, 2010).
The state’s inability to enforce the law and the national elite’s dependency on local oligarchs provide a fertile ground for local “strongmen” to build their dynasties (McCoy, 2009).

8. Rise of political dynasties
Weak state
Strong local oligarchs
Poor party institution

9. political dynasties at the subnational level
It is possible for politics at the national level to display a high degree of contestation and inclusiveness, while politics at the subnational level show the contrary.

10. political dynasties at the subnational level
Competitive authoritarianism (Levitsky and Way, 2010)
the ability to influence the electoral outcome by employing informal institutions

11. political dynasties at the subnational level
Subnational authoritarianism (Gibson, 2013)
Authoritarian incumbents dedicate major efforts to insulate their jurisdictions from such pressures and to limit access by local oppositions to national elites and resources.

12. political dynasties at the subnational level
Political dynasties may keep power as long as:
They can tame the local oppositions and delink these oppositions from national political actors or authorities through various means, both legal and illegal;
The national-level political actors and authorities do not intervene in local issues.

13. Decentralization and the Emergence of Political Dynasties in Indonesia
Source:

14. Decentralization and the Emergence of Political Dynasties in Indonesia
Sochib-Rau dynasty’s power in Banten was built on three sources:
financial power (exclusive access to government projects)
coercive means (jawara)
political party (family members who occupy several key positions in the local Golkar branch)
Source: Hamid, 2014

15. Decentralization and the Emergence of Political Dynasties in Indonesia
Decentralization policies and local direct elections have opened new channels for local oligarchs to pursue “wealth defense” through the acquisition of elective offices and build their “political dynasties” within their respective regions (Winters, 2011).

16. Decentralization and the Emergence of Political Dynasties in Indonesia
Direct local elections also brought about a new model of dynastic government.
Increasing trend of use of force and intimidation to mobilize votes in local elections.

17. Political dynasties in the philippines
The resilience of clan dynasties both in prevalence and magnitude has made the Philippines a notable case of “local bossism” (Sidel, 1999).
“From local elections in 1901, to legislative elections in 1907, and presidential elections in 1935, the Americans built electoral politics from the municipality upwards, thereby entrenching provincial families in both local and national offices” (McCoy, 1994).

18. Political dynasties in the philippines
Approximately 180 families control Philippine politics (CenPEG, 2015).
Out of the 80 provinces, around 72 to 75 provinces have active political families or political clans that have established political dynasties (Teehankee, 2015).

19. Source: http://www. philstar

20. Source: https://worldknots.wordpress.com/tag/political-dynasty/

21. Source: http://www.congress.gov.ph/orphil/

25. Dynastic rule Indonesia and the Philippines
The Philippines’ colonial experience is the most significant factor in the emergence of bossism in the country.
Indonesian oligarchs are nowhere to be found until the Suharto era (Winters, 2011).

26. Dynastic rule Indonesia and the Philippines
“The politics of local bossism in Post-Suharto Indonesia is more fluid than in the Philippines due to the wider range of interested parties as well as the widely dispersed local centers of power” (Hadiz, 2010).

27. Dynastic rule Indonesia and the Philippines
The political behavior of political dynasties in Indonesia is similar to the situation in the Philippines where “rent-seeking behavior” and “crony capitalism” among elite families have been common place over the past two centuries (McCoy, 1999).

28. Dynastic rule Indonesia and the Philippines
The democratization process in Indonesia has been hijacked by “the predatory patronage” of local elites and local oligarchs (Hadiz, 2010).

29. Maraming salamat sa inyong pakikinig.