Guns, Goons, and Graphs

Friday, 24 June 2011 00:00

Written by Louie C. Montemar

Some of our history teachers may have told us that the Spanish were motivated by 3 G's in conquering our islands. There's Gold and Glory of course, and then there's God. We can't tell if they came in any particular order of importance but we sure know that we were later sold to the North Americans for a few measly silver pieces, as it were. Perhaps the former conquistadores prayed hard and they were instructed by some divine power to let go in the name of the almighty greenbacks.

Much, much later, when the manner of changing regimes in this country was done through a less garapal and more subtle and sublime way, the elites discovered another set of G's. The all powerful three G's of Philippine elections — Guns, Goons and Gold. Guns and goons were basically one G. One is just more effective with the other. Gold is still there shimmering in the glow of its yellow magic. With guns and gold employed in the hugely popular and festive electoral game, oligarchs, landlords and warlords claimed the formal seats of power and created the illusion of legitimacy in ravaging our motherland.

Today, I posit that there are at least four (4) G's that matter in electoral politics. Guns, Goons, Gold, and Graphs. When the modern oracles of Philippine politics speak people (at least the media) buzz. I am referring here to SWS and Pulse Asia. These two polling firms have been keeping the political elite on their toes, praying to whatever gods there may be to bless them with favourable public opinion as regards their most cherished concerns.

In the most recent elections, SWS and Pulse Asia surveys have become very precious to the wannabes. Quite obviously it's good propaganda to be at the top of these public opinion surveys. With Ms. Candidate X at the top, she can: one, fill herself up with more hot political air to rise to the political heavens, i.e., begin to think that God is giving her a sign to run; two, use that popularity as a leverage in negotiations with possible supporters and edge out other claimants; and, three, if she loses, especially with a narrow margin, claim that she was cheated.

Now consider this latest fetish of our critical citizenry or what passes of as “the opposition” in this country: the monitoring of the President’s popularity ratings. In the latest ratings released by both the SWS and Pulse Asia, the President still enjoys a relatively high popularity, acceptance or performance rating. There has been however, since the last elections, a continuing dip in the President’s ratings especially in some segments of the population. Going by the popularity rating trends of previous regimes, to my mind, these latest results are quite expected. I will not make much fuss about these results.

However, some are now questioning the very validity of these surveys especially with the latest survey results between the two polling groups differing quite notably. What has to be clarified here however is that the two groups may be posing similar but not the same questions from different sets of respondents in their respective periodic surveys. You ask the same question in “different” ways, from different sets of people, you may get differing answers. Personally, therefore, I do not see anything anomalous in these varied and varying numbers of the latest SWS and Pulse Asia polls on the President’s popularity.

After all, their numbers, these figures, especially if graphed, only suggest a certain direction and not a CERTAINTY. Anyone worth his high school diploma should know this. Should.

What is perhaps even more interesting for us to know is how the President precisely stands on various issues that face the polity. If we knew how he stands on various matters, then perhaps we can make a more meaningful critique of the current government’s programs (or lack thereof), especially if we take into account certain findings from these pollsters such as: (Pulse Asia data, as of February 2009) that most Filipinos (57%) know little about the 1987 Philippine Constitution; that nearly six in ten Filipinos (59%) do not agree with proposals to shift to parliamentary and federal systems of government; that huge majorities (77% to 84%) oppose specific proposed constitutional amendments having to do with term extensions and foreign ownership of lands; and, that nearly four in five of Filipinos (81%) are not in favour of extending the term of office of national and local elective officials, and 77% do not support moves to allow elective officials to run in the elections as many times as possible.

The use of surveys — or “Graphs” — as instruments of social science and politics must be considered properly, or taken in perspective.

Truly, public opinion polls can help us make more intelligent decisions. But let us not turn elections and governance into mere popularity contests by simply basing our leadership choices, policy views, and political actions on who or what are more popular based on these surveys.

For if we truly believe these polls blindly, why still hold elections and a have a Batasan? Why still have a Malacañang and not just set up an online governance server maintained by a joint committee of statistic-geeks from Pulse Asia and SWS? Bakit pa tayo magsasayang ng oras at panahon? Let's just commission the SWS and Pulse Asia to do surveys and let them declare our leaders or craft our policies. No need for elections and tedious processing of decisions and negotiation. Less window, perhaps, for corruption.

But of course we should know better. Should.

Graphs are not there, like Goons with their Guns, to scare us to make forced-choices, nor to tempt us, with Gold, into sumptuous spots. Let us take Graphs as guides for informed decision making. Let us be guided accordingly and put the people's agenda at the top of the political discourse.