The Philippines is a bit of an oddball in Southeast Asia: a country economically tethered to the United States through deep-rooted historical, political and financial ties, yet it consistently ranks as one of the least democratic nations in Asia.

That it is routinely viewed as a cultural extension of the US and in many ways as an ever present US-dependent state means that in the eyes of many in East and Southeast Asia, the Philippines is never quite viewed as a true member of the region.

This contradiction raises the question of how a state so heavily influenced by a relatively liberal democracy like the US could exhibit such chronic democratic backsliding, with institutions undermined by corruption, and powerful political dynasties in particular.

The answer lies somewhere in the understanding of the blend of colonial legacies, economic dependencies and domestic power structures that make up the modern-day Philippines; aspects of society that have prioritised elite interests over real democratic values.

Colonial roots and the US economic umbilical cord

The economic closeness of the Philippines to the United States is best understood through its colonial history. After defeating Spain in 1898, the United States established control over the archipelago, ruling it as a colony until granting independence shortly after the end of WWII – in 1946.

In that period, the US embedded itself into the economic and political fabric of the country. American companies dominated sectors such as agriculture, mining and manufacturing, while a system of governance was installed that has largely mirrored US structures in the decades since – at least superficially.

That there are an estimated 4.2mn US citizens identifying as Filipino and over 350,000 illegal immigrants from the Philippines is telling and demonstrates the cultural pull of the US.

However, while democratic institutions were imported into the Philippines, they functioned within a colonial and then post-colonial context dominated by a local elite. American influence did not really try to dismantle entrenched feudal and patronage systems but instead often co-opted them. In time this led to a hybrid system of sorts under which elections were held, but real power was confined to a small circle of landed families and political dynasties.

This continues today with modern-day political dynasties and such names as Aquino and Marcos and Duterte are never far from political discussions.

Economically too the Philippines remains tied to the US through several mechanisms. Primarily this has taken shape in the form of the US being one of the Philippines' top trading partners and sources of foreign direct investment (FDI).

The enormous Filipino diaspora in the US also contributes significantly to the Philippine economy through remittances home which account for almost 10% of the current GDP and help sustain millions of families against domestic economic instability.

Then there is the military and development aid from the US which continues to play a substantial role in shaping Philippine economic priorities.

As such, even in the 21st century, the Philippines' economy remains deeply intertwined with American interests and preferences.

Democratic deficits

Despite this economic closeness to a democratic superpower, the Philippines struggles with its own democratic institutions. The country holds regular elections and may appear democratic thanks to a constitution and a free press, but underneath these formal structures lies a system riddled with clientelism, corruption and weak rule of law.

One of the most persistent issues undermining Philippine democracy is the dominance of political dynasties. More than 70% of the Philippine Congress is made up of members from roughly 250 dynastic families around the nation – many inter-married. These families often control regional economies and use their wealth and influence to maintain political dominance.

Elections, therefore, become contests among oligarchs, rather than genuine exercises in democratic choice. Voters frequently face limited options, with candidates often drawn from the same elite circles while truly independent candidates are very few and far between.

In addition, the role of the military and police has further eroded democratic norms, especially in the past 20 years.

Former President Rodrigo Duterte – now sitting in a cell in The Hague awaiting trial before the International Criminal Court for his role in the “war on drugs” – was in part responsible for tens of thousands of extrajudicial killings.

These were often carried out with the tacit or explicit support from security forces and the judiciary has been largely ineffective in holding perpetrators accountable.

Duterte’s successor, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., son of the former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, has not reversed these trends. His election in 2022 only marked a symbolic continuation of authoritarian tendencies.

The weakness of democratic institutions in the Philippines is also exacerbated by widespread poverty and inequality with millions of impoverished citizens relying on local politicians, employers or religious groups, which leads to reduced clout on the part of the population in demanding effective democratic accountability.

US influence: a double-edged sword

To this end, while the US bears some responsibility for this democratic malaise, during the Cold War, the US backed the Marcos dictatorship due to his anti-communist stance, turning a blind eye to human rights abuses and democratic suppression.

In doing so, Washington maintained its representative in the region, few questions asked.

Even after the People Power Revolution in 1986, US aid and support continued to flow regardless of the quality of governance.

In recent years too, US foreign policy has oscillated between assertive support for democracy and pragmatic silence.

This inconsistency tells the Philippine’ elites that authoritarian behaviour does not necessarily incur international consequences.

Ultimately then, the Philippines is caught in a dual bind: economic dependency on a democratic superpower while internally governed by structures that perpetuate inequality and elite dominance.

Until these domestic challenges are confronted, and until such influential allies as the US align their rhetoric with their actions, the Philippines is likely to remain an economically integrated but politically fragile state on the periphery of real Asian democracy.