Philippine Election Aftermath: Goodbye Illusion, Welcome Reality!

``Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.” -Henry A. Wallace

First of all I’m gratified that the Philippine elections are nearly over with, as we are just awaiting the formality of official proclamations. The Philippine elections according to the Business Mirror had been the “most peaceful” since 2004[1].

Naturally, I presume that the goals of the automated polling system has been to facilitate for a swift and accurate tabulation of results and reduce chances of manipulation and human error, all of which should diminish tensions that could spur violence as traditional methods has. And quite obviously, technology has been critically instrumental in this successful transformation.

Second, I am glad that the Filipinos appear to have accepted the results and would like to congratulate everyone for the success of the exercise.

Of course, I’d also like to extend this congratulatory note to the new President, President Noynoy Aquino, as well as all other newly elected officials in both national and public offices.

Third, contra to the many commentators who romanticize or glamorize on the results of the poll, e.g. People power victory, we’d like to put the current events into perspective.

Political Leadership Determined By A Significant Minority

With a 90.2% of the total votes tabulated[2], where candidate Noynoy Aquino holds a commanding lead with 13,841,583 votes, I estimate the final tally to reach 15.3-15.5 million. This should reflect a little over 40% share of total voter turnout.

By the way, total voter turnout of the recently concluded elections, at 38 million, represents 75% share of the total registered voters, which according to the Business Mirror, had been the highest since 1978[3].

Figure 1: NSCB: Philippine Voting Distribution

According to the NSCB[4], there are 50.7 million registered voters (see figure 1), and 56.21 million projected voting population.

This only means that Mr. Aquino’s share of votes would be reduced or extrapolated to only signify 30.5% and 27.56% of the population, respectively.

Yet, I am not sure how the NSCB arrived at 56.21 million, considering that the present count of the Philippine population stands 92.2 million with 35.2% of the population at ages 0-14[5]. Statistical errors can dramatically swing the size of potential voters.

What I am driving at is that the political leadership in the Philippines have been determined by only a third (or even less) of the eligible voting (registered and non registered) population.

So how can we adduce ‘people power’ when today’s Philippine political exercise represents a vote of the plural minority?

Remember 18 million (56.21 million minus 38 million) voters did not participate in this exercise, for one reason or the other, and that’s even more than the votes accrued by candidate Aquino [estimated at 15.5 million]!

18 million votes could have swung the election results either way, or yet pejoratively seen, 18 million could have represented disenchantment with the process [!] or have been thought as a non-bearing activity or of lesser import to their lives [!].

One possible anticipated objection from this is that- it is the fault of the 25% of the registered voters, as well as the other 6 million who didn’t register and similarly vote.

But this would be a non-sequitor, it doesn’t deal with the fact- why our representative government ‘represents’ only the voice of the significant minority and certainly not Vox Populi, Vox Dei.

The other possible rebuttal is that People Power represents symbolism of the winning candidate as legacy from the parents. Well, in this case, I would agree, elections function nothing more than as symbolism.

Think of it, in 2001 President Joseph Estrada was ousted by a second edition ‘People Power’ revolution yet in this election candidate Estrada has garnered a substantial 25.5% of the voting share among those who voted! Whatever happened to the so called principles of People Power 2?

Yet if one ponders at the polling trends prior to the filing of candidacy of the contenders until the culmination of elections, deducing the poll data would only reveal that the cornerstone of today’s elections have been the struggle between pro-Aquino and anti-Aquino camps[6].

Since candidate Aquino’s share of votes have been little changed from start to the end, most of the variability or fluctuations from poll figures came from among the opposition. This only implies that the unfortunate part for the anti-Aquino camp is that the votes had been split or divided into 8 aspirants!!

Had the Philippine electoral platform been structured on a two party system or if we had a run-off elections for the top spot, candidate Aquino’s victory won’t be anywhere near assured. Based on economist Kenneth Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem[7], and given the share distribution of election returns, there would have been a big chance for an upset!

Populist Symbolism And Celebrities

Moreover, all one has to do is to take a look at the composition of the winners of the Senate to determine the quality of votes or how Filipino voters chose.

The rosters of winners can be broken down into two categories, one, celebrities turned politicians, and second, the political class, incumbent or inherited. Apparently, no exceptions this time around.

In other words, Filipinos on a national level did NOT vote based on “relevant issues” as misleadingly propounded by some inebriated commentators, but mostly on familiarity and perceived symbolism.

The fact that the antagonists from past people power revolution versions 1 & 2, who were represented in the national levels in the Presidency and the Senate, reaped considerable votes only reveals how people have abridged memories or have very little sense of history.

One may argue that celebrities didn’t fare all that well in the current elections[8]. But this would be mistaking the forest from trees.

The contest for local positions, where celebrities have not fared as well relative to national positions, have more direct impact on voters, such as annual doleouts, transfers, ‘free’ health or hospital use, ‘free’ movie passes, various freebies for the elderly and etc... Hence, popularity may not work its magical wonders relative to magnified effects of redistribution through local social programs. In short, patronage politics is likely to overwhelm the celebrity status on a local level.

In the national levels, where the impact of redistribution has been perceived as indirect, thus the conspicuous the dominance of popularity based votes.

Besides, it would also be a mistake to assume celebrities have equal stardom effect to the populace, as this would be more of a local issue (level of perception of a celebrity’s popularity transformed into social programs), political associations or affiliations [since people think based on symbolism, associations matter] and the contrast effect principle relative to the other challengers, including the incumbents.

Moreover, another vital issue will always be that of financing (a.k.a. direct or indirect vote buying), which could be a chink in the armor of celebrities relative to the incumbents.

Such dynamics, while strong in the local levels, may have a little less significance relative to the national level. And this seems how the national elections took hold.

Political Reality Seeps In

What’s shaping up is that the Aquino presidency appears likely to be confronted by an opposition (GMA) appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice and possibly an opposition dominated Congress (both in the Senate and the House of Representatives).

For those who believe that Aquino’s regime will be founded on virtuosity that would lead to corruption free governance, this will be the first supreme test [yes, even before the official inauguration!].

For President Aquino to be able to put his programs at work, he would need the collaboration of the Congress. Yet he is caught in a dilemma. He would need to attract significant segment of the opposition to his side or forge an alliance or otherwise risk becoming ineffectual. It’s a battle between supposed “principle” versus political convenience, where a looming tradeoff in President Aquino’s political stance would reveal of the harsh reality of Philippine politics.

In essence, the next phase of the electoral process can be characterized by horse trading and vote buying in Congress (via Pork barrel)[9].

Can President Aquino resist the allure of annexing power or risks being rendered into a lameduck president? Here based on public choice theory, the answer will be no. Like all presidents before him, there will be much dirty politics in play. Maintaining popular appeal translates to high profile “president in action” regardless of the validity of the prop act.

Yet once President Aquino embarks on this process, as the 1980 song by the Fixx goes, “One Thing Leads To Another”!

This only means: Goodbye Illusion, Welcome Reality!

---

[1] Business Mirror, Polls ‘most peaceful’ since 2004

[2] ABS-CBN, Partial Results of votes for President; “official data from the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), which did a parallel vote count”

[3] Business Mirror, 38-million voter turnout highest since 1978

[4] National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) Did you know that … Region IV-A has the highest number of registered voters for the 2010 elections?

[5] Wikipedia.org, Demography of the Philippines

[6] See Philippine Post Election Analysis: 2010 Election Theme and The Runoff Theory

[7] See Philippine Elections: In A Hypothetical Runoff Elections, Will Noynoy Aquino Still Be The Winner?

[8] GMANews.tv, Celebrity winners and losers in May 2010 polls

[9] See Quote of the Day on Philippine Politics: Changing Parties To Get So Many Benefits Under A Sitting President

Philippine Elections: Why I Will Vote For President "None Of The Above"

On Monday May 10th, we will be holding our national elections. And I cast my vote in favour of "None Of The Above" as President. 

Here is why: My vote will not affect the outcome of the election, not even if I am able to convince my family or as a metaphor the barangay where I reside. (about 1% of voting population equals 500,000 votes). 

 Besides, the personal cost of going to vote (transportation, filling up forms, effort, time, risks to security etc.) seems greater than the impact of my vote. My vote will not affect the prospective policies of the future leaders.

For example, US President Obama was popularly elected but enacted a very unpopular law-the Obamacare. President Obama’s approval ratings now are at the lowest level since he assumed the post, not only because of Obamacare but on the issues prior to this. 

 Also what is popular is mostly wrong, whether it is Philippine elections 1998 which led to People Power 2, Juan Peron, Adolf Hitler, or etc..., what you vote for, most of the time, may not be what you expect to get. My vote won’t be reflective of symbolism or popular expectations of peoples' interpretation of their morality vicariously reflected on their desired candidates. 

Instead, my vote will anchor on political-economic reality. The way I see in today’s political theatre, the current crop of contestants for the highest field in the land can be classified into two categories-the status quo-cians and socialist dreamers. The status quo-cians are the leading candidates whose political successes have emanated from the current political conditions. They are what Professor Arnold Kling calls as the "Insiders" in the Philippine context. Hence they are unlikely to roil the present conditions in spite of the rhetorical demagoguery about “changes”. 

Have you heard any politician who doesn’t utter the spiel about "changes"? 

Commons sense tells me that immense elections expenses will need to be recovered and that the political baggage from assorted horse trading and backroom dealing with different and ideologically opposed political groups will suggest more of the same policies, but with a subtle difference-the distribution of power will be based according to the degree of political debts as perceived by the new leaders. 

In other words, the only “changes” I expect to see post elections are personalities involved in dispensing public funds and controlling power (and not in the system dominated by cronyism and client-patron relations). The rule of the entrenched political class means 'the more things change the more they remain the same'. 

On the other hand, the socialist dreamers are those in the tailgroups of the survey and are unlikely to win, but whose idea of change appear mostly predicated on their socialist messianic visions. While they come with less political albatross, the lack of machinery, popularity and finance poses as big handicaps to their ambitions. 

In realization of these therefore my vote will not be an imaginary display of democratic virtue. 

Finally, my vote will reflect on my understanding that governance is a very complex issue and not some grand simplistic mythology about leadership virtuosity and omniscience. There are many factors involved such as behavioral, stimulus-response or feedback mechanisms from existing laws and welfare system, the effectiveness of social institutions, diversity of public's demand for social services, bureaucratic hurdles, opportunity costs and etc... 

 In addition, governance is even more than just an issue of knowledge problem. It is more about the issue of the stakeholders problem-where the incentives to secure knowledge are driven by the degree of stakeholdings. For example a businessman would try to secure all required knowledge in his field to assure the survivalship of his enterprise. That’s because if one fails, the cost of failure will be significant, i.e. loss of capital aside from the attendant psychological effects. 

Meanwhile for voters, since the costs of voting for a losing candidate are personally inconsequential and because of the lack of stakeholdings, people tend to vote based on prejudices, popularity, and potential connections (or even from bribery). 

 That’s why people see election like sports game, to fittingly quote the Economist, ``POLITICS, our Bagehot columnist reckons, is like sport: the way people see incidents is determined by which team or party they want to win, even if they do not realise this is the case.” 

 While some people try to portray elections as a battle between “good” over “evil”, the fact is that all candidates are human beings and are subject to human frailties [as noted above subject to political debts, subjective interpretation of events, limited knowledge, influenced by networks, etc...]. 

Hence good over evil, or black propaganda seems equivalent to the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black" and reveals only of the irrationality of voters. Little has been said about the candidates’ biases on the economic impacts from a bloated bureaucracy, complexity and enforceability of laws, costs of redistribution, costs of compliance, politicization of social institutions, taxation and etc... things that truly matters most. Well even if they did, they were buried in media, since they haven’t been in the fancy of the public, since these issues are complex or hardly understood (or maybe even plain refusal to be understood). 

As for leaders, the issue of stakeholdings depends largely on their career interests. That’s why politicians and bureaucrats are typically “reactive” agents-their policy responses are predominantly reactions to the events that capture the attention of the populace for the moment (example, whatever happened to the proposed law surrounding the Halili-Ong sex video scandal?) 

Thereby, considering the vast coverage of the interconnectedness and complexity of any society, securing knowledge are merely delegated to the bureaucracy and attended to only at the “need” of the moment. 

In short, the knowledge problem exists not only due to human frailty but likewise due to the low incentives or stakeholdings by the leadership to attain them (yes to repeat, because society is too broad to be comprehended by any single person or by the state). 

 What does the stakeholding problem suggest of the prospective candidates? Well as said above very little, except to get elected. To close, I think domestic political trends will increasingly be shaped by external factors as argued here and that's why some political aspirants have been directing their platitudinous political themes to OFWs. 

And perhaps like many followers of President Obama, a year after next week's elections, many voters would turn out frustrated enough to regret their choice this coming Monday.