The arrival of the United States in the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century marked a dramatic shift in the archipelago’s history. Following the Spanish-American War and the subsequent Philippine-American War, the U.S. found itself the unexpected colonial power. Unlike previous foreign rulers, the Americans came with a distinct political ideology rooted in democratic principles, representative government, and the idea of preparing colonized peoples for self-rule through education and political training. One of the most significant changes introduced was the formal system of Philippine Electoral Politics Under American Rule. This wasn’t merely a change in who held power, but a fundamental alteration in how power was sought, gained, and legitimized.
For centuries under Spanish rule, political power, outside of the colonial administration itself, was largely concentrated among the principalia – the native aristocracy, landowners, and former pre-colonial leaders (like datus) and their descendants. While there were local positions like gobernadorcillo, these were often selected from the principalia class and operated within a system heavily controlled by the Spanish friars and colonial officials. There was no broad, Western-style electoral system based on popular suffrage.
The question then arises: was the introduction of American-style elections a radical break from this long-standing tradition of elite control and centralized authority? Or did the existing power structures merely adapt, utilizing the new electoral framework to maintain their dominance? This article will explore the development of electoral politics in the Philippines from the early days of American military rule through the establishment of the Commonwealth, examining the intentions behind the introduction of elections, the actual mechanics of the process, the rise of political parties, the persistence of traditional influences like caciquism (political bossism), and ultimately, the complex answer to whether this era represented a fundamental rupture or a sophisticated evolution of Filipino political life.
Early American Governance and the Seeds of Self-Rule
Following the end of major hostilities in the Philippine-American War, the U.S. transitioned from military rule to a civil government. The stated goal of this transition, articulated in President McKinley’s Instruction to the Second Philippine Commission (the Taft Commission) in 1900, was “benevolent assimilation” – essentially, preparing the Filipinos for self-governance. The instruction emphasized the importance of gradually extending political rights and privileges to the Filipino people, starting at the local level.
This marked a significant philosophical departure from the Spanish approach. While Spain had ruled for centuries, their focus was on maintaining control and propagating Christianity, with limited efforts towards developing local political autonomy in the Western sense. The Americans, conversely, saw the introduction of representative institutions and electoral processes as a necessary path towards eventual independence. This was a core tenet of their colonial policy, albeit one implemented gradually and cautiously.
The first steps towards electoral politics were tentative and localized. The Taft Commission began establishing municipal and provincial governments. Filipinos were allowed to participate in these new structures, but the selection process for initial positions was often appointive or involved limited selection mechanisms rather than broad elections. However, the groundwork was being laid for a system based, at least in principle, on the consent of the governed, expressed through the ballot box.
The First Elections: Municipal and Provincial Ballots (1900-1901)
The earliest formal elections under American rule took place at the municipal level in 1900, starting with the town of Baliuag, Bulacan, in May 1900, under U.S. military supervision. The General Order No. 40, issued by the U.S. military governor, set the framework for these initial municipal elections. This was followed by the Municipal Code (Act No. 82) and Provincial Government Act (Act No. 83) passed by the Taft Commission in 1901, which provided a more formal, legal basis for municipal and provincial governments and their electoral components across the pacified areas of the archipelago.
These early elections were far from democratic by modern standards. The suffrage was extremely limited. To be eligible to vote in municipal elections under the 1901 codes, a male Filipino had to meet strict requirements. He must:
- Be at least 23 years old.
- Have resided in the municipality for at least six months.
- Have held municipal office before August 13, 1898 (this catered to the principalia).
- Or own real property worth 500 pesos.
- Or be able to read and write either Spanish or English.
Table 1: Early Philippine Electoral Milestones Under U.S. Rule
| Year | Event/Legislation | Significance | Suffrage Basis (Initial) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1900 | Municipal elections begin (e.g., Baliuag) | First formal elections under U.S. direction | Limited: 23+ male, residency, office-holding or property or literacy |
| 1901 | Municipal Code (Act 82), Provincial Govt Act (Act 83) | Legal framework for local governments and elections | Same as 1900 municipal criteria |
| 1902 | Philippine Bill of 1902 | Authorized creation of Philippine Assembly after census & peace restoration | Set stage for national legislative elections |
| 1907 | First Philippine Assembly Election | First national legislative election; significant step in self-governance | Limited: male, 23+, residency, property or literacy in Spanish/English |
| 1916 | Jones Law | Replaced Philippine Commission with Senate; expanded Filipino control; promised independence | Retained literacy/property qualifications, but expanded scope of electorate indirectly |
| 1935 | Commonwealth Constitution Ratified, Presidential Election | Established framework for independent republic; first presidential election | Expanded, included women (conditional initially) and broader literacy |
These qualifications effectively restricted the right to vote to a small percentage of the male population, primarily the educated elite (ilustrados) and the land-owning principalia. Women were completely excluded. The intent behind this limited suffrage was pragmatic for the Americans: they believed only the most “qualified” and influential Filipinos could understand and participate responsibly in the new system, and it also served to co-opt the existing local power holders into the new framework, ensuring a degree of stability and cooperation.
The principalia quickly recognized the potential of this new system. While their traditional authority was based on land ownership, social status, and historical lineage, elections offered a new path to legitimate power and influence within the American structure. Instead of resisting the system entirely, many embraced it, using their existing networks, resources, and influence to mobilize voters and secure positions in the municipal and provincial boards. This early adaptation by the elite foreshadowed a pattern that would persist throughout the American period and beyond: the principalia would successfully navigate and often dominate the formal electoral landscape.
The Philippine Assembly Elections (1907)
A major milestone in Philippine Electoral Politics Under American Rule was the election of the First Philippine Assembly in 1907. Authorized by the Philippine Bill of 1902, the Assembly was to be the lower house of a bicameral legislature, with the Philippine Commission (composed primarily of Americans) serving as the upper house. This was the first time Filipinos had a nationally elected body with significant legislative power, including control over appropriations.
The election for the 80 seats in the Assembly generated considerable excitement and political activity. Campaigning took place across the islands (in the pacified areas). Two main political factions emerged and solidified into parties:
- Nacionalista Party: Advocated for immediate and complete independence from the United States. Led by prominent ilustrados like Sergio Osmeña and Manuel L. Quezon.
- Progresista Party (formerly Federalista Party): Initially favored statehood within the U.S. or a gradual path to independence through cooperation with the Americans.
The election results showed overwhelming support for the Nacionalista Party, which won the majority of seats. Sergio Osmeña was elected Speaker of the Assembly, a powerful position that made him the highest-ranking Filipino official in the colonial government until the establishment of the Commonwealth. This outcome demonstrated the strong nationalist sentiment among the voting public (limited as it was) and set the stage for the dominance of the independence issue in Philippine politics.
The 1907 election, while a significant step, still operated under the restrictive suffrage rules established earlier. The electorate remained small, composed mainly of the urban and rural elite. Campaigning involved public speeches, rallies, and the distribution of propaganda, often leveraging existing social networks and traditional patron-client relationships. The high stakes – control over a national legislative body – intensified political competition, sometimes leading to fraud, intimidation, and violence at the local level, reflecting not just the newness of the system but also the intensity of power struggles among the elites.
Expanding Suffrage, Slowly: The Evolving Electorate
Over the next few decades under American rule, the suffrage requirements were gradually liberalized, though they remained restrictive compared to universal suffrage. The Jones Law of 1916, which replaced the Philippine Bill and established a more autonomous Philippine Legislature (with a Senate and House of Representatives, both elected by Filipinos), largely retained the existing property and literacy qualifications.
However, literacy was the qualification that saw the most significant practical expansion of the electorate over time. As the American government prioritized education, establishing public schools across the archipelago, the number of Filipinos who could read and write, particularly in English, increased. This slowly broadened the pool of eligible voters beyond the traditional Spanish-speaking or property-owning elite. By the 1930s, literacy in any native language as defined by the law also began to be accepted, further expanding the electorate.
Despite this expansion, the majority of the population – particularly peasants and laborers who lacked formal education or significant property – remained disenfranchised throughout most of the American period. Women continued to be excluded until the late Commonwealth era. The political system, therefore, remained largely an arena for the elite, albeit a growing elite that included the new, educated class.
The fight for women’s suffrage was a notable movement during the American period. Filipino women leaders, inspired by international movements and educated in the new system, actively campaigned for the right to vote. This culminated in a provision in the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution that granted women suffrage if 300,000 eligible women voted in favor of it in a plebiscite. The plebiscite, held in 1937, saw an overwhelming ‘yes’ vote, finally granting Filipino women the right to participate in elections.
The Rise of Political Parties and Elite Rivalries
The introduction of elections spurred the formalization of political organizations. The Nacionalista and Progresista/Democrata parties dominated the early years. The Nacionalistas, advocating for immediate independence, quickly became the dominant force, effectively marginalizing the Progresistas, whose platform of cooperation with the U.S. became increasingly unpopular as nationalist sentiments grew.
Within the Nacionalista Party, a powerful duumvirate emerged: Sergio Osmeña of Cebu and Manuel L. Quezon of Tayabas (now Quezon Province). Osmeña, as Speaker of the Assembly, focused on building institutions and consolidating Filipino power within the existing framework. Quezon, more charismatic and politically savvy, became the Resident Commissioner to the U.S. Congress, lobbying aggressively for independence. Their alliance was crucial for Filipino political advancement, but it was also marked by intense rivalry.
This rivalry, often referred to as the Osmeña-Quezon Tiff, became a central feature of Philippine Electoral Politics Under American Rule, particularly after the passage of the Jones Law in 1916, which established the Philippine Senate and elevated Quezon to the position of Senate President. While they often presented a united front against American rule, their competition for leadership among Filipinos led to internal party squabbles, factionalism, and dramatic political showdowns, such as the dispute over the Hare–Hawes–Cutting Act (which offered independence with certain reservations) in the early 1930s.
Political parties under American rule were less based on rigid ideological platforms (beyond the independence question) and more on personalities, regional ties, and patron-client networks. Elections were often contests between prominent local or national figures, backed by their respective factions and networks. This focus on personality and connection, rather than purely policy-driven debates, was arguably a continuation of pre-colonial and Spanish-era political dynamics where loyalty and patronage were paramount.
Caciquism: Adapting Tradition to the New System
Perhaps the most compelling evidence for arguing that Philippine Electoral Politics Under American Rule was not a complete break from tradition lies in the phenomenon of caciquism. The term, originally from indigenous Caribbean languages and used by the Spanish, refers to local political bossism – individuals (the cacique) who wield significant power and influence in a locality, often through a combination of land ownership, economic control, debt relations, control over local resources, and traditional authority.
The American introduction of elections, intended to democratize power, inadvertently provided caciques with a new, formal mechanism to legitimize and perpetuate their control. Instead of undermining the cacique‘s power, the electoral system often enhanced it.
- Control over Voters: Caciques could mobilize voters through their economic leverage (landlords over tenants, creditors over debtors), social pressure, and even outright coercion or vote-buying. The limited suffrage meant that manipulating a relatively small number of voters in a district was often feasible.
- Gatekeepers of Power: They acted as intermediaries between the national political structure and the local populace. National politicians needed the support of local caciques to win elections in their districts or provinces, while caciques used their connections to national politicians to secure favors, resources, and protection for their local base and interests.
- Manipulation of the System: Caciques were adept at navigating the rules of the new system, influencing voter registration, controlling local election committees, and sometimes engaging in fraudulent practices to ensure the victory of their chosen candidates (who were often themselves or their relatives).
Historical accounts and studies from the period detail how elections became contests not just of ideas, but of competing cacique networks. While the names and structures were American (parties, elections, legislatures), the underlying dynamics of power often retained elements of the traditional patron-client relationships and elite dominance that characterized the pre-American era. The electoral system did not eradicate caciquism; it provided caciques with a new arena and new tools.
Blockquote:
“The introduction of American democracy in the Philippines did not destroy caciquism. Instead, it gave it a new form, transforming the cacique from a traditional chieftain into a political boss… Elections became mechanisms through which the traditional elite could legitimate their power within the new political framework.” – Political historian on the American period in the Philippines.
This suggests that while the form of political competition changed dramatically – from appointed positions and informal influence to formal elections and party politics – the substance of who held power and how they maintained it (through local dominance, patronage, and elite networks) showed significant continuity with pre-existing traditions.
Key Legislation Shaping the Electoral Landscape
Two key pieces of U.S. legislation fundamentally shaped Philippine Electoral Politics Under American Rule: the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law of 1916.
The Philippine Bill of 1902 was the organic act that established the governmental structure for the Philippines under U.S. civil rule. It authorized the creation of the Philippine Assembly, setting the stage for the first national legislative elections in 1907. While retaining ultimate authority in the U.S. Congress, it signaled a commitment to gradual self-governance and introduced the framework for representative democracy.
The Jones Law (Philippine Autonomy Act) of 1916 was even more significant. It replaced the Philippine Commission (the American-controlled upper house) with a wholly elected Senate and expanded the powers of the Filipino-controlled legislature. It explicitly stated the U.S. intention to grant the Philippines independence “as soon as a stable government can be established therein.” This law substantially increased Filipino participation and control over their own affairs and made the outcomes of Philippine elections even more consequential. The Senate and House became powerful platforms for Filipino leaders to exercise legislative authority and lobby for independence.
These laws provided the formal structure within which Philippine electoral politics evolved. They defined the institutions, the scope of Filipino power, and the path (however conditional) towards independence, making control of the elected bodies the primary goal for Filipino politicians and parties.
The Commonwealth Period (1935-1946): Towards Independence
The final phase of Philippine Electoral Politics Under American Rule was the Commonwealth period, established in 1935 under the Tydings-McDuffie Act. This act promised independence after a 10-year transition period. The Commonwealth government had a constitution (the 1935 Constitution) drafted by Filipinos and approved by the U.S. It established a presidential system, a unicameral National Assembly (later restored to bicameral), and a significantly expanded electorate.
The 1935 Constitution codified the suffrage requirements, which were still based on literacy (in English, Spanish, or a native language), property ownership (or tax payment), and age (21+). However, literacy rates had increased, and the inclusion of native languages broadened the base compared to the early 1900s. Crucially, the plebiscite in 1937 integrated women into the electorate.
The first presidential election in 1935 was a landmark event. Manuel L. Quezon defeated his rivals, including Emilio Aguinaldo (the revolutionary president) and Bishop Gregorio Aglipay, becoming the first President of the Commonwealth. This election cemented the dominance of the Nacionalista Party, which effectively became the ruling party during this period, though internal factions and opposition parties continued to exist and contest elections.
Commonwealth elections saw the further development of modern campaigning techniques, party machinery, and the consolidation of political power structures that would carry over into the post-independence era. While the electorate was larger than ever before, the influence of elite families, local bosses, and patronage networks remained significant, continuing the pattern observed in earlier decades. The political stage was national, with a powerful presidency, but the roots of political power often remained deeply embedded in local socio-economic structures.
Evaluating the “Break from Tradition”: Continuity and Change
So, returning to the core question: was Philippine Electoral Politics Under American Rule a radical break from tradition? The answer is complex and involves elements of both rupture and continuity.
Arguments for a Break:
- Formal System: The introduction of a formal, codified system of regular elections based (in principle) on popular suffrage was fundamentally different from the informal, elite-driven, and often appointive systems of leadership selection under Spanish rule or in the pre-colonial barangays/confederations.
- Representative Institutions: The establishment of elected legislative bodies (Assembly, House, Senate) with significant powers was a new institution that provided a formal arena for political debate, representation (albeit limited), and the articulation of nationalist aspirations.
- Political Parties: The formation of organized political parties with platforms and national structures was a departure from the more personalistic factions or regional groupings of the past.
- Focus on Independence: Elections became the primary vehicle for expressing the Filipino desire for independence, giving a formal, political dimension to nationalist movements.
Arguments for Continuity (No Complete Break):
- Elite Dominance: The suffrage restrictions and the socio-economic structure ensured that political power remained largely concentrated in the hands of the principalia, ilustrados, and emerging economic elites. The new system did not fundamentally redistribute political power away from these traditional groups.
- Caciquism and Patronage: Traditional practices of local bossism, patronage, vote-buying, and the use of economic leverage to control voters were not eliminated by the electoral system. Instead, they adapted to and thrived within the new framework, becoming integral (and often problematic) features of the process.
- Personality Politics: While parties existed, loyalty often remained tied to powerful personalities and their networks rather than strictly to party platforms or ideologies. This echoes the personalistic nature of traditional leadership.
- Limited Popular Participation: For much of the American period, the vast majority of Filipinos could not vote, meaning the electoral system, while formally “representative,” did not reflect the will of the broad populace.
In conclusion, Philippine Electoral Politics Under American Rule represented a significant structural break from past traditions by introducing Western-style formal elections and representative institutions. However, it was not a complete break from the traditional power dynamics. The existing elite structures, particularly caciquism, proved highly adaptable, successfully integrating themselves into the new electoral system and utilizing its mechanisms to perpetuate their influence. The period thus created a hybrid political culture: a formal democratic framework layered upon and significantly shaped by pre-existing social hierarchies, economic inequalities, and patron-client relationships. This complex legacy continues to influence Philippine politics today.
Key Takeaways:
- The U.S. introduced formal electoral politics to the Philippines as part of its “benevolent assimilation” policy aimed at preparing Filipinos for self-rule.
- Early elections (municipal, provincial, and for the Philippine Assembly) had very limited suffrage, primarily restricted to the educated and land-owning elite (principalia).
- The Philippine Assembly election of 1907 was the first national legislative election and saw the rise of the pro-independence Nacionalista Party.
- Key laws like the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law of 1916 provided the legal framework for the evolving electoral system and increased Filipino legislative power.
- Suffrage gradually expanded, particularly through increasing literacy, but remained limited until the late Commonwealth period when women gained the right to vote (1937).
- Traditional power structures, particularly caciquism (local bossism), adapted to the electoral system, using patronage and control over resources to influence voters and dominate local politics.
- Philippine political parties during this era were often more based on personality and networks than rigid ideology, reflecting some continuity with traditional political dynamics.
- The Commonwealth period (1935-1946) saw the establishment of a presidential system and the first presidential election, further developing the modern political structure.
- While introducing democratic forms, Philippine Electoral Politics Under American Rule also allowed for the persistence and adaptation of traditional elite control and patronage, resulting in a political system that was a hybrid of new structures and old dynamics.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
Q: When did formal elections first start in the Philippines under American rule? A: Formal municipal elections began as early as 1900 in some pacified areas under U.S. military supervision. A legal framework was established by the Taft Commission in 1901, leading to wider municipal and provincial elections.
Q: Who was allowed to vote in the early elections? A: Suffrage was very limited. Initially, only Filipino men aged 23 or older who met specific requirements related to past office holding, property ownership (500 pesos), or literacy (in Spanish or English) were eligible.
Q: What was the Philippine Assembly? A: The Philippine Assembly was the first elected national legislative body composed entirely of Filipinos, established in 1907 as the lower house of the legislature under the Philippine Bill of 1902.
Q: What were the main political parties during the early American period? A: The two main parties were the Nacionalista Party, advocating for immediate independence, and the Progresista Party (formerly Federalista Party), which initially favored cooperation or eventual statehood. The Nacionalistas quickly became dominant.
Q: What is caciquism and how did it affect elections? A: Caciquism refers to local political bossism, where influential individuals (caciques) control local affairs through economic power, social status, and networks. Under American rule, caciques adapted to the electoral system, using their influence and resources to mobilize voters and win elections, often through patronage or coercion, thus maintaining traditional elite power within the new framework.
Q: When did Filipino women get the right to vote? A: Filipino women gained the right to vote in 1937, following a plebiscite as stipulated by the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution.
Q: How did the Jones Law of 1916 change Philippine politics? A: The Jones Law replaced the American-controlled Philippine Commission with an elected Senate, giving Filipinos control over both houses of their legislature. It also explicitly stated the U.S. intention to grant independence, making control of the legislature even more crucial for Filipino leaders.
Q: Was the introduction of elections a complete break from traditional Philippine political systems? A: No, it was not a complete break. While introducing formal democratic structures like elections and parties, the new system was significantly shaped by existing traditional power structures, particularly the dominance of elites (principalia) and the persistence of caciquism and patronage networks, which adapted to and often controlled the electoral process.