An essential element of longer-term success will be concerted attention to reforming the Philippines’ increasingly beleaguered political institutions.

The crowd that gathered at his inauguration had no doubt to whom the new president was alluding when he talked about dirty politics. His predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, has left office as the most unpopular president since the fall of Ferdinand Marcos in 1986. Arroyo became president in a 2001 ‘people-power’ uprising motivated by anger over the corruption of her predecessor, but stepped down in 2010 under a cloud of disrepute: corruption allegations against her and her husband, close ties with notorious warlords, widespread human rights abuses, and more. The greatest political damage came after evidence that President Arroyo had been personally involved in efforts to pad her vote margin in the 2004 election. No one can question Arroyo’s skill at maintaining herself in power amid controversy; sadly, however, this effort led to the further politicisation of the country’s already politicised bureaucracy, military, and judiciary.

Arroyo’s nine years in the presidential palace, longer than any other chief executive in Philippine history aside from Marcos, brought forth a widespread clamour for clean leadership. When former President Corazon C. ‘Cory’ Aquino succumbed to cancer in August 2009, the country was overcome by a wave of nostalgia for the ‘yellow revolution’ that she had led against the Marcos regime after the 1983 assassination of her husband, Benigno ‘Ninoy” Aquino, Jr. In the wake of a huge ‘people-power’ uprising on the streets of Manila in early 1986, Cory was propelled to the presidency. Many years later, it is the memory of this struggle that propelled her only son, Noynoy, to become the Liberal Party’s 2010 presidential candidate (despite his lacklustre record across 12 years in the House and Senate). With a campaign slogan embodying the goal of good government–’Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap’ (If no one is corrupt, no one is poor)– Noynoy emerged in the 10 May elections with the largest plurality of any post-Marcos president.

In some ways, the ascension of another Aquino to the presidency in 2010 feels a bit like 1986 all over again. Just as Corazon Aquino saw herself as the antithesis of Marcos, so is Noynoy seeking to differentiate himself as explicitly as possible from his predecessor. As in 1986, the inaugural speech had a post-authoritarian tone. Cory’s cry was ‘Never Again!’ while Noynoy proclaimed that ‘Today marks the end of a regime indifferent to the appeals of the people.’ Nearly a quarter-century later, Noynoy is assuming the presidency at age 50–exactly the same age as was his father Ninoy when he was assassinated.

The new president has assembled a generally seasoned cabinet comprised in large part of old faces from his mother’s administration, former Arroyo associates who resigned when the electoral scandal came to light in 2005, and Liberal Party allies. Together, they confront a range of extremely challenging problems in desperate need of attention: a mounting budget deficit and infrastructural deficiencies (requiring more effective generation of revenue by a state that has long had a low tax effort); high rates of poverty (with 44 per cent of the population subsisting on less than US$2 per day); lack of employment opportunities (encouraging some 10 million Filipinos to head overseas for work); a secessionist conflict in Mindanao now four decades old; an equally old communist insurgency fuelled by longstanding socio-economic disparities; loopholes in the land reform program (with renewed attention on Noynoy’s family’s sprawling sugar estate north of Manila); a public education system that has declined steeply in recent decades; massive environmental degradation, heightening the country’s longstanding vulnerability to natural disasters; and growing security challenges amid an increasingly volatile regional environment.

As he takes the helm, Noynoy is putting major focus on projecting a new style of leadership. ‘The first step,’ Noynoy said in his inaugural speech, ‘is to have leaders who are ethical, honest, and true public servants.’ The new president has set out ambitious goals as part of what he perceives to be a clear mandate for change, ‘to transform our government from one that is self-serving to one that works for the welfare of the nation.’ But this is certainly not the first time an incoming Philippine president has attacked the corruption of his or her predecessor and promised a new and cleaner style of leadership. Strong presidential leadership can indeed bring important change–as demonstrated by the economic reforms pushed through under the administration of President Fidel Ramos between 1992 and 1998 (lubricated by the pork barrel, the sine qua non of legislative achievement in the Philippines). Over the longer term, however, the prospects for Philippine prosperity and the viability of Philippine democracy depend on the emergence of stronger political institutions.

Analysts have long noted the weakness of Philippine political institutions, notably political parties and the bureaucracy. Most mainstream parties are merely personal vehicles for political advancement, and concern for patronage and pork crowds out attention to programs and policies. Past efforts to promote bureaucratic reform have rarely been sustained, and the Philippine state often has difficulties implementing the laws that are promulgated by democratic institutions in Manila. The question that Noynoy posed in his inaugural speech is one that many Filipinos have long pondered: ‘Is our government beyond redemption?’

Despite the patronage and personalism that infuse the polity, the Philippines has generally been able to muddle through. While its record of economic development in recent decades does not match that of its fast-paced neighbours, there have been periods of respectable growth. The quality of democracy has declined in recent years, but democratic structures remain in place. Looking forward, however, we can anticipate mounting challenges of governance. There are many reasons for this, but a focus upon population growth is sufficient to make the point. Thirty years ago, when Noynoy and his family were in exile in Boston, the population of the Philippines was 48 million. It is now an estimated 95 million, and thirty years hence (in 2040) it is projected to reach 140 million. As the country grows, and its problems become more complex, stronger institutions will be critical to achieving the goal of good government.

Noynoy begins his six-year term in office with what seems to be a strong sense of destiny. ‘I will not be able to face my parents and you who have brought me here if I do not fulfill the promises I made,’ he said in the conclusion of his inaugural address. ‘My parents sought nothing less, died for nothing less, than democracy and peace. I am blessed by this legacy. I shall carry the torch forward.’ Expectations are high, and many are very keen for the new president to succeed. But a focus upon leadership alone will not bring forth the ambitious changes he has promised. If success is to come, and if the torch is to be carried forward beyond the current administration, a new and cleaner style of leadership needs to be accompanied with concerted attention as well to the imperatives of institutional reform.

Paul D. Hutchcroft is Director of the School of International, Political, and Strategic Studies in the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific.

A fuller version of this article can be downloaded from here.