The Philippine Presidency and Party Loyalty: Party Switching in the Philippines

Elizabeth Joy A. Fadri

Political Parties and Party Switching
“Political parties are groups of people organized for the purpose of winning government
power.” (Heywood 2010) Political parties are essential in modern states whether democratic or
authoritarian because these groups compete for seats in the government and in turn make
decisions for the welfare of the state. From these political parties, presidents, legislators, down to
local government officials are taken from. Heywood identifies and summarizes the functions of
political parties in political systems as that of representation, goal formulation, elite formation
and recruitment, interest articulation and aggregation, socialization and mobilization, and
organization of government. (Heywood 2010) Since state leaders are taken from these political
parties, an overarching ideology, clear interest and position, unity, allegiance and cooperation is
crucial in political parties to be able to carry out their plans. But depending on existing party
rules, on what is legal or accepted, allegiance within political parties may decline and be
partnered by gradual shifting out of the parties to other political parties by members.
This action is termed as party switching or sometimes referred to as turncoatism, which
occurs when party members switch to another parties. Party switching has been viewed
negatively by other scholars but according to Heller and Mershon, there is more to party
switching than it is being anomalous and being associated with states having weak party systems.
According to them, political parties also occur in almost all states even with those who are stable.
Also, party switching has “vital normative, theoretical and substantive implications”. (Heller and
Mershon)
If party switching also occurs in stable states, it is interesting to determine in which
political systems is there a higher possibility of it to occur and under what circumstances do they
happen. Scholars suggest that politicians switch parties when they change their views or
ideology, or if they think that their party are not as influential in decision-making and when their
contributions are not influential as well. (Janda 2009) In Cunow’s discussion on the impact of
party switching in Brazil, he cited works from Heller, Mershon, and Desposato on the
characteristics of political systems where party switching is likely to occur. Party switching is
likely when there is greater uncertainty and ambiguity in party labels, where there are low
transaction costs of switching and when resources are greatly different between parties. (Cunow
2010) Switching can therefore be studied using institutional and political economic approaches.
Politicians are most likely to switch parties when rules on switching are weak or absent and they
also are most likely to jump out of the party when resources are abundant in the other parties.

Party Switching in the Philippines

The characteristics of political systems where turncoatism is likely to occur, as pointed
out by Cunow, can be true for the Philippines (1. Where there is greater uncertainty and
ambiguity in party labels and 2. Where there are low transaction costs of switching and when
resources are greatly different between parties 3. And, when the resources are greatly different
between parties). But in addition to these three, in studying the case of the Philippines, the
executive and the nature of political parties are also influential to the decision made by
politicians regarding party switching.

Party switching is not new to the Philippines; it is rampant in the legislative branch and is
commonly dictated by whoever wins as the president of the country. In instances when minority
party presidential candidates win, afterwards, the party becomes dominant in the legislature. This
practice dates back to the time when there were only two parties competing in the country. An
account by Lande reveals that after the 1961 elections where the Nacionalista handed over the
presidency to the Liberal Party, 21 newly elected Nacionalista members of the House of
Representatives joined the Liberal Party. (Lande 1967) A general observation is that politicians
do not only switch parties after elections, some also move to other parties even before elections
depending on which parties are most likely to win based on the standard bearers of the party. The
party’s funding is also a factor for a politician’s decision. These politicians are colloquially
called political butterflies maybe because they fly around political parties, land where the nectar
is abundant then leaves afterwards.

Uncertainty and ambiguity in party labels

Ideology of political parties in the Philippines has long been changed since the time of
the Federalistas and the Nacionalistas. Ever since the debate between the two parties ended and
the Federalistas were eventually out of the political landscape, parties became same products in
different packaging. This was true when only the Nacionalista Party (NP) and the Liberal Party
(LP) were on the scene, and still holds true for the mainstream parties that joined NP and LP in
the multi-party system as mandated by the 1987 constitution.

This characteristic of mainstream political parties have been discussed by Manacsa and
Tan arguing that, political parties in the Philippines are transient, that they are not founded on
social cleavages, ideologies or issues. In their discussion they used several approaches which
included a patron client approach arguing that political parties are transient because they are only
used by the politicians to further their interests at a specific time, given elections. Elections has
become a venue for this portable political parties formed by the elites to institutionalize and
formalize their conflicts and competition over resources; and the institutional approach looking
at the structure of the government where The structure of the powerful president is one, making
the political arena more of choosing the person and his/her face and not the party and its visions.
And lastly, the lack of internal organization and strong governance inside the party also
contributes to its weak structure and therefore its transient nature. (Manacsa and Tan 2005)