First published in 2001. This study shows how legitimate elections held under centralized authoritarian conditions before 1986, though not democratic, still contributed to democratization by creating the political space needed for democratic oppostion to arise.

This book critically examines two indicators of Philippine democracy, namely, elections and political parties. It looks closely at the democratic principles and values of participation, authorization, representation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, and solidarity as these coalesce into the Philippine electoral institutions. The assessment powerfully scrutinizes these universal principles of democracy as they are embedded in a complex web of politics and culture, which makes reforms challenging indeed. Democrats and scholars of democracy will find this book worthwhile.

"In the Name of Civil Society examines Philippine politics in a highly original and provocative way. Hedman’s detailed analysis shows how dominant elites in the Philippines shore up the structures of liberal democracy in order to ensure their continued hegemony over Philippine society. This book will be of interest to everyone concerned with civil society and the processes of democratization and democracy in capitalist societies." —Paul D. Hutchcroft, University of Wisconsin, Madison What is the politics of civil society? Focusing on the Philippines—home to the mother of all election-watch movements, the original People Power revolt, and one of the largest and most diverse NGO populations in the world—Eva-Lotta Hedman offers a critique that goes against the grain of much other current scholarship. Her highly original work challenges celebratory and universalist accounts that tend to reify "civil society" as a unified and coherent entity, and to ascribe a single meaning and automatic trajectory to its role in democratization. She shows how mobilization in the name of civil society is contingent on the intercession of citizens and performative displays of citizenship—as opposed to other appeals and articulations of identity, such as class. In short, Hedman argues, the very definitions of "civil" and "society" are at stake. Based on extensive research spanning the course of a decade (1991–2001), this study offers a powerful analysis of Philippine politics and society inspired by the writings of Antonio Gramsci. It draws on a rich collection of sources from archives, interviews, newspapers, and participant-observation. It identifies a cycle of recurring "crises of authority," involving mounting threats—from above and below—to oligarchical democracy in the Philippines. Tracing the trajectory of Gramscian "dominant bloc" of social forces, Hedman shows how each such crisis in the Philippines promotes a countermobilization by the "intellectuals" of the dominant bloc: the capitalist class, the Catholic Church, and the U.S. government. In documenting the capacity of so-called "secondary associations" (business, lay, professional) to project moral and intellectual leadership in each of these crises, this study sheds new light on the forces and dynamics of change and continuity in Philippine politics and society.

The current combination of electoral systems in the Philippines essentially guarantees the perpetuation of weak and incoherent political parties. As long as parties are weak and lacking in coherence, the primary focus of political contention is much more likely to be on patronage and pork than on policies and programs. As political reformers seek to address these fundamental problems of the Philippine polity, there is no better place to start than through a well-constructed set of changes to the electoral system.In this volume, expert contributors survey major types of electoral systems found throughout the world, explain their powerful influence on both democratic quality and development outcomes, and explore the comparative political dynamics of reform processes. A recurring theme is the virtue of a mixed electoral system involving some element of closed-list proportional representation — known internationally as one of the most effective means of building stronger and more coherent political parties. This, in turn, can be expected to encourage the emergence of a more policy-oriented (and less patronage-driven) polity.