Curiously, today’s Gospel might appear to echo the dynastic impulse of many politicians. Jesus said, “Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matthew 11:11). This raises a question: Was Jesus downsizing John the Baptist by inaugurating a kind of spiritual dynasty?

A closer look shows the opposite. Jesus was not belittling John the Baptist. Instead, He was highlighting the fact that John the Baptist stood at the end of a long period of expectation and the beginning of the age of fulfillment. As the final prophet of the old covenant, he announced the coming of the Messiah but did not live to see the fullness of Christ’s saving work. In this sense, even the most ordinary disciples of the Kingdom inaugurated by Jesus are “greater” than John the Baptist because they experienced what he only foretold: a deeper intimacy offered by the Spirit and membership in a renewed community shaped by grace rather than law.

Jesus fulfilled the Jewish dream of a Messiah emerging from King David’s lineage, but His life proved that His kingship is spiritual, not hereditary. Greatness in His Kingdom is not inherited. Jesus Himself corrected His disciples when they competed for status, saying, “Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant” (Matthew 20:26). Political systems built on bloodlines often distort this teaching by confusing public office with entitlement.

Sadly, this distortion reflects much of our own political reality. Government positions are often gained through family ties or lineage, rather than merit. Those born into powerful and wealthy families receive better education, wider opportunities, and stronger networks of influence. Their future is often secured long before they exert any effort to earn it.

Political dynasties treat the nation as their family heirloom, passing power among relatives and effectively sealing off political competition. This inbreeding limits opportunities for equally capable or more qualified candidates. Since elections often depend on name recall, dynastic candidates gain unfair advantages.

Studies by investigative groups reveal that political dynasties hold the majority of seats in Congress and government positions in provinces and cities. The situation is worsened by many party-list groups claiming to represent marginalized sectors but are, in fact, dynasty members or their proxies.

To be fair, some dynastic leaders govern well, but they are the exceptions, not the rule. History shows that family interests within political clans often overshadow the common good, resulting in public disputes, legal battles, and even violence among them. The pressure to preserve their strong grip on power and influence can overshadow their constituents’ welfare.

Good governance flourishes when leadership is entrusted to the qualified and competent, not confined to a privileged few. A just society must ensure that ability, not ancestry, determines who leads the nation.

This might be the motive for the President’s much-publicized support for the long-stalled anti-dynasty bill in Congress. Yet his action was met with skepticism, given that his own family exemplifies the very system the bill seeks to dismantle. The Marcoses have long demonstrated how dynasties consolidate and perpetuate power across both local and national levels.

Many therefore wonder whether his announcement is a sincere call for genuine electoral reform or merely a political posturing. Unless he limits the political roles of his own relatives, the initiative will seem symbolic rather than transformative. And realistically, how can an anti-dynasty bill pass in a Congress dominated by dynasties?

When political power becomes hereditary, public office begins to resemble a throne rather than a vocation. Experience shows that when a person’s sense of accountability is diluted by family loyalty and selfish interest, corruption often finds fertile soil. Christian leadership is essentially an ethical reality, not a genetic entitlement. Good governance must not depend on bloodlines, but forged in the crucible of character, integrity, and commitment to the common good.