Beyond surveys: Why voters prioritize economic needs over politics?

A survey commissioned by the Stratbase group and the Social Weather Station conducted from Feb. 15 to 19 brings to mind P-Noy’s well-known mantra: “Walang mahirap, kung walang corrupt.”

The survey showed that while just a little over 50 percent of respondents view Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial—over allegations of betraying public trust and misusing taxpayer money—as a significant issue in the upcoming elections, it did not rank among the top concerns for the 1,800 randomly selected participants. It earned, to be sure, the lowest ranking among the 15 socioeconomic and political issues presented.

As expected, the top concerns are those closest to the gut, such as agricultural development (most likely rice affordability), healthcare, job creation, and equal access to education. Other important issues include workers’ rights, reducing poverty, tackling inflation, climate change, national security regarding the West Philippine Sea, and energy security. Political problems, such as fighting deep-seated and systemic corruption and generational political dynasties, seemed the least concern to the survey respondents.

The numbers underscore the notion that fundamental economics often eclipse critical, if not equally important, political issues like corruption and lack of accountability from those alleged to have betrayed public trust. Accordingly, candidates were suggested to address food security and the increasing costs of essential commodities, highlighting the need to focus on food affordability and accessibility in the upcoming elections.

Although not new, the evidence-based suggestion partly explains why many politicians construct their campaign promises around addressing these economic necessities, as such initiatives tend to resonate more easily with marginalized and vulnerable populations. I still have to find a politician promising political change and empowerment to their intended audience.

Grizzly politicians have long discovered that the fastest and most effective modus to woo voters’ hearts is through their grumbling stomachs. Practices such as the so-called “ayuda politics” manifest this time-tested modus, catering to the immediate economic needs of the masses during election seasons. However, the efficacy of these seasonal and band-aid initiatives in engendering meaningful and transformative sociopolitical change remains to be seen. It may even wittingly or unwittingly undermine the political rights of the impoverished and marginalized electorate, who may have been long conditioned to sell their votes to the highest bidder.

This dynamic can foster a sense of “utang na loob” (debt of gratitude), wherein needy recipients may quite naively perceive politicians’ moneyed and well-oiled helping behavior as devoid of self-serving motivations. Sadly, impoverished individuals often lack the luxury of critically discerning whether these politically motivated acts of seasonal public benevolence aim to enhance their socioeconomic conditions over time. In addition, and most sadly perhaps, alternative candidates stand very little chance of winning.

The ambiguous and evolving interplay between massive poverty and a culture of corruption calls for a revisit of the implications of such political practices on the empowerment of disadvantaged groups and sectors of our society.

Noel Asiones,

noelgasi2000@yahoo.com