by
Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD
When it comes to matters of governance, the resolution of conflicts, and international relations, political measures are frequently more successful and practical than legal remedies alone. Legal techniques are vital to upholding the rule of law, but they are limited by the law's rigidity, the procedures' complexity, and jurisdictional limits. On the other hand, political approaches provide elements such as flexibility, negotiation, compromise, and adaptability to shifting social and geopolitical settings. The purpose of the author is to manifest that political approaches are superior in addressing management concerns, socio-economic conflicts, political party activities, international disputes, and even some legal obstacles, particularly in environments that are complex, terrorized, dynamic, and multidimensional.
Political Approaches vs. Legal Formalism
Legal
approaches typically rely on codified laws, litigation, court decisions, and
enforcement through judicial systems. These mechanisms are often slow,
expensive, and adversarial. Legalism tends to focus on the interpretation of
rules rather than the realities on the ground. According to Rosenberg (2008),
law is inherently limited in producing social change because it relies on
political will and enforcement capacity. Political solutions, however, focus on
building consensus, managing conflicting interests, and addressing root causes.
In
contrast, political approaches embrace negotiation, diplomacy, mediation,
lobbying, and stakeholder engagement. These tools prioritize the resolution of
conflict through consensus-building rather than punishment. As Putnam (1988)
notes in his “Two-Level Game” theory, political actors must simultaneously
satisfy domestic and international stakeholders, making negotiation more
effective than court decisions that may alienate certain groups.
Management Problems and Institutional Disputes
Political
approaches are particularly useful in resolving intra-organizational and
bureaucratic conflicts. Management problems in public institutions often stem
from differing ideologies, power struggles, or conflicting mandates. Legal
remedies may only address the symptoms through disciplinary actions or judicial
intervention, but not the root causes. Bennis and Nanus (1985) emphasized that
leadership and communication—key political skills—are central to resolving
organizational dysfunctions. In the Philippine setting, studies by Brillantes
and Fernandez (2011) argue that collaborative governance and political
negotiation among stakeholders significantly improve bureaucratic performance
and policy outcomes.
Political Party Operations
Political
parties inherently function within political—not legal—frameworks. While laws
can set boundaries for party financing and conduct, internal disputes,
leadership struggles, and electoral strategies are more effectively managed
through negotiation and consensus rather than legalistic confrontation. For
instance, in the Philippines, internal schisms within major parties like
PDP–Laban have been resolved (or at least managed) through backchannel dialogue
and power-sharing agreements rather than prolonged litigation (Teehankee,
2020).
In
democracies, legal battles within parties may weaken public perception and
hinder electoral success. Political mechanisms like caucuses, conventions, and
compromise platforms are essential in maintaining unity. As Katz and Mair
(1995) assert, political parties operate as “cartel parties” that depend on
negotiation both within and outside formal legal boundaries to survive in the
competitive political marketplace.
Socio-Economic Issues
Socio-economic
problems such as poverty, inequality, and unemployment are systemic and
multifactorial, and thus rarely resolved by legal means alone. Legal reforms,
such as minimum wage laws or land redistribution statutes, require political
will and administrative commitment. According to Sen (1999), development is
fundamentally a political process involving empowerment, participation, and
institutional accountability—not just legal codification.
Political
instruments like public policy reform, inclusive governance, and participatory
budgeting have yielded better socio-economic outcomes. In Latin America,
political mechanisms such as conditional cash transfer programs—designed
through political dialogue—have lifted millions out of poverty (Fiszbein &
Schady, 2009). In the Philippines, programs like Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino
Program (4Ps) emerged from a political consensus and have been recognized for
their developmental impact, despite legal controversies over their
implementation (Reyes et al., 2015).
International Disputes
International
disputes are rarely resolved through legal mechanisms like international
courts. While treaties and international law provide frameworks, most conflicts
between nations are addressed through diplomacy and political negotiation.
Legal rulings, such as those by the International Court of Justice, are often
unenforceable without political support.
A pertinent
example is the 2016 Hague ruling favoring the Philippines in its maritime
dispute with China. Despite the legal victory, the Philippines had to rely on
diplomatic channels and political negotiations to manage its relationship with
China, which rejected the verdict (Batongbacal, 2017). This demonstrates that
legal remedies, though symbolically powerful, are ineffective without political
leverage and international support.
Legal Difficulties and Political Mediation
Political resolution often resolves even legal difficulties involving constitutional crises, impeachment, or corruption. In many democracies, impeachments are decided not
solely on legal evidence but on political arithmetic and alliances. In the
Philippine experience, impeachment cases like those of former Chief Justice
Renato Corona were more political than legal in nature, with outcomes driven by
Senate coalitions and executive influence (La Viña, 2012).
Moreover,
transitional justice mechanisms—like truth commissions and amnesties—often rely
on political compromise rather than legal prosecution. These political tools
aim to restore societal cohesion after civil strife, which legal institutions
alone cannot achieve.
Conclusion
While law
plays a critical role in maintaining order and setting standards, political
approaches offer greater versatility, inclusivity, and pragmatism. They are
indispensable in managing disputes, resolving institutional conflicts,
enhancing governance, addressing socio-economic inequalities, and handling
international tensions. The dynamic and complex nature of governance requires
the soft power of politics to complement—and often surpass—the rigid structure
of law. Thus, an over-reliance on legalism may hinder rather than help
meaningful resolutions in public affairs.
References
Batongbacal,
J. (2017). The aftermath of the South China Sea arbitration ruling: Strategic
and political implications. Asian Journal of International Law, 7(2), 360–372.
Bennis, W.,
& Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper
& Row.
Brillantes,
A. B., & Fernandez, M. T. (2011). Is there a Philippine public
administration? Or better still, for whom is Philippine public administration?.
Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 55(1-2), 245–280.
Fiszbein,
A., & Schady, N. R. (2009). Conditional cash transfers: Reducing present
and future poverty. World Bank.
Katz, R.
S., & Mair, P. (1995). Changing models of party organization and party
democracy: The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics, 1(1), 5–28.
La Viña, T.
(2012). Politics and the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Ateneo School of Government Working Paper.
Putnam, R.
D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games.
International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.
Reyes, C.,
Tabuga, A., Asis, R., & Datu, M. (2015). Evaluation of the Pantawid
Pamilyang Pilipino Program: Impact on education and nutrition of children.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Rosenberg,
G. N. (2008). The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change? University
of Chicago Press.
Sen, A.
(1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Teehankee,
J. (2020). Weak party structures and strong political clans in the Philippines.
Southeast Asian Affairs, 2020(1), 303–316.
