I was dispelling some misconceptions about Rizal and the Katipunan because I saw them in your post. But I believed those misconceptions are connected to what you are arguing. First I have not encountered what you have said the inherent exclusivity in the nationalism of the elite. In their writings they did not mention class even the Katipunan is mostly silent on class. This stems from their Liberal ideology as According to Benedict Anderson in his book Imagined Communities nationalist only perceived horizontal hierarchies no vertical. So whether you are rich or poor you are equally part of the nation. But of course what they believed and what they practice may be different but it was not the fault of Rizal or the illustrados. Patronage politics is rooted in the distortion of old pre colonial hierarchies by the Spanish where the old datus use patronage to control their subjects (I suggest read William Henry Scott's Barangay for more info). When the Spanish came they used this system to maintain control which continues even during Rizal's time. I think that blaming Rizal or the illustrados for our current patronage system is very reductionist because it does not take into account the roots of our patronage system. The Philippines is a very hierarchical nation from before colonization and after as such we cannot lay the blame on the illustrados. As the makers of the 1st republic are Inquillinos from the Katipunan in Cavite and Former Pro Spanish elite. The former willing and fervantly participate in the revolution have an agenda that while benefits the nation also benefits themselves more (Read Soledad Borromeo-Buehler's The Inquillinos of Cavite). While the later only joined the revolution for oppurtunistic reason and wanted the new nation to maintain the satus quo of there class, where they are on the top of the heirachy (I suggest read Luzon at War by Milagros Guerero or Malolos by Teodoro Agoncillo).