This paper attempts to clarify the pattern of Philippine political legitimacy before and after martial law. The philippine political history since the Revolution of Independence can be largely characterised by the restriction of charismatic rule and movement toward more conservative, rational-legal rule with coexistent traditional values. Although traditional values often undermineded democratic ideals and the legal code, other factors contributed to their maintenance. Until martial law, legitimacy was fundamentally constitutional. However, inefficiencies in the political system particularly in the distribution capacity enlarged the gap between the people's beliefs and expectations, and the realities. Ambivalence about constitutional legitimacy called for changes in institutions, in the quality of leadership and even for change of the entire system.
  It is still premature to conclude whether legitimacy has changed or not since September 21, 1972. However, it is most likely that constitutional legitimacy is not at present functioning; instead there is a more authoritarian legitimacy colored by the creation of charismatic images. The majority seem to accept authoritarian rule, passively or actively, but probably on a temporary basis while looking for movement towards the equal distribution of wealth. The urban elite seems split : those who advocate universal, constituional democracy; those who claim the need for authoritarian rule to bring changes and efficiency; and the extremists. The first group is growing while Marcos is building his own system of government.
  Lacking constitutional legitimacy, the Marcos regime must prove itself more able to meet the expectations of people than the former democratic system, if it is to survive the short term; in the long term, constitutional legitimacy may well become vital because of the growing democratic potential.

抄録全体を表示