Franchesca B.

Mendiola

145224 SA21

SOCIAL CLASS PERCEPTIONS OF THE 2016 NATIONAL ELECTION

Election is definitely about public opinion and choice. And there are as many factors
which affect voting as there are voters. These may include combination of such factors as well
as sociological and political factors. One of such factor is social class, and it has been argued that
voting behavior is determined by social class. Social classes are the hierarchical arrangements of
people in society, often as economic or cultural groups. Social class can be determined by things
such as income, the amount of property own, education and family. (Hinton, Patrick 2010)

Traditionally, social class has been seen to be the most important factor
associated with voting behavior. According to Peter Pulzer in 1967, that "Class is the basis of
British party politics; all else is embellishment and detail." It could be similarly said of the
Philippines since we pattern our political system to that of Western countries.

The Philippines, during the years 1946 until the declaration of Martial Law in 1972, had a
strong party alignment to the dominant two parties: the Nacionalista and Liberal. We were the
pioneer democracy in Southeast Asia, thus membership to political parties was very high
compared to that of our neighboring countries. Filipinos then identifies and supported the
policies of the party they voted for. Electoral volatility was low with few people changing their
vote between elections.

The Martial Law era was characterized by an authoritarian regime. There has been a low,
but steady change in trends and voting behavior since there was practically no election held
during that time. Neither there was any verifiable source of information to deduce anything
about voting.

The EDSA Revolution of 1986 and consequently the ratification of the 1987 Constitution
resulted to new patterns of voting. The multi-party system and party-list representation has
saturated the option of voters. Hence, “politics of personality” emerged. We may relate these
changes to what British political theorist, Duneleavy in 1983 identified as: Class Dealignment-
the weakening in the correlation between social class and voting behavior, and Partisan
Dealignment- a decline in the strong attachments felt by voters to a particular political party.

THE INTERVIEW:
 I hereby investigated the perspectives of social classes in relation to the upcoming
elections. This interview is to examine, in a limited way, if the possible outcome of the votes are
enough to be attributed on the basis of social class.

I) RESPONDENTS:

There were two respondents each representative of diverse social class yet the same in
respect to their gender, age, religion and marital status. They are categorically dissimilar in
terms of social class as defined by their wealth, income, education, occupation and family
background.

Respondent A is a in her mid 40s, a practicing Roman Catholic and mother to three
teenage sons, all studying in high-profile educational institutions. She hails from a known family
in their province. She holds a college degree in Banking and Finance. She is a Senior Corporate
Financial Analyst. She is married to an engineer working for a multinational company. Their
combined income had procured for them their own property in an executive village south of
Manila. They have more than one vehicle and they can afford to go abroad as a family at least
once a year.

Respondent B is also in her mid 40s. She identifies herself as a Roman Catholic but
admits she does not regularly attend church. She receives an honoraria as an elected Kagawad
in their Barangay. She is also into direct-selling of merchandise to augment her income. She
came from fisher folks in the Bicol region until she migrated to Metro Manila in her early 20s to
seek the proverbial “greener-pasture”. She is a high school graduate and was able to complete
only the first year in college. Her spouse is a security guard and they have two kids. The son had
a vocational education and is now working as a hotel utility in Makati. The daughter is enrolled
in a community college in their local. They belong to a community situated on public domain
which yet to entitle them as owners of their residence.

II) INTERACTION:

The interview was conducted “one-on-one” with either respondent. Respondent A was
at ease and direct with her answers as she has a good command of the English language. She
communicates clearly and effectively, in a structured and sustained manner, making excellent or
good use of appropriate political vocabulary.

The conversation with Respondent B however was more tensed and the questions had
to be interpreted in the vernacular, Filipino, with constant rephrasing and explaining for her to
comprehend. She communicates explanations or arguments with limited clarity and
effectiveness using common parlance. Her answers may lack either a clear focus on the question
or a sense of direction. She had nonetheless exhibited a good amount of confidence to say what
she meant.

Respondent A had successfully demonstrated excellent knowledge and understanding of

socio-political issues compared to Respondent B. Where appropriate, she was able to illustrate
her answer with relevant evidences and examples as opposed to the other respondent. She has
full grasp of concepts, theories, institutions and processes to the limitation of Respondent B.

III) INTERPRETATION:

It was common-knowledge to both respondents that the COMELEC was the government
agency responsible in conducting the elections. Respondent B however has no idea what
specific law/s governs the elections while Respondent A was good enough to have replied with
the Omnibus Election Code even if she admits that she has little detailed knowledge of its
provisions.

When asked about the credibility of Philippine elections, Respondent A believes so with
some doubts since she believes that the system is inherently imperfect. Respondent B likewise
believes with some doubt without further explanation.

On their preference whether automated or traditional/manual voting and canvassing of

votes or either, Respondent A was for automation for the reason that it is more faster and
efficient even if it does not guarantee the truthfulness of the results. She adds that nothing is
fool-proof; that technology is still subject to human manipulation. She asserts that it is vital to
keep-up with trends in more democratic countries.

Respondent B however opted for either. She believes that the credibility of the election
is dependent on the voters’ attitude and not on the system. She asserts whether automated or
manual, electoral fraud is possible if the voters’ consents to it.

When asked about the factors affecting the results of the elections, the top 5 influences
were ranked accordingly by each of the respondents as 1 being the highest.

Respondent A Respondent B

1. Media 1. Media
2. Prevailing issues 2. Endorsement
3. Electoral system 3. Campaign strategy
4. Campaign strategy 4. Prevailing issues
5. Endorsement 5. Electoral system
 It was evident that media ranked as the highest factor by both the respondents. The
other factors however were perceived differently by each of them. The prevailing political
issues were apparent to Respondent A than B as it was ranked higher by the former than by the
later. Political endorsements, on the contrary, ranked higher with Respondent B than with A as
it may indicate that the former is more inclined towards “politics of personality” than issues.
They are also diverse towards ranking the electoral system, as Respondent A perceives it as a
pertinent factor while Respondent B perceives it less as an influence. Campaign strategy was
fairly ranked to both respondents.

Each of the respondents ranked the following to where they get information about the
upcoming elections as 1 being the highest.

Respondent A Respondent B

1. Television/radio 1. Television/radio
2. Social media/internet 2. Print media
3. Print media 3. Campaign sorties
4. Campaign sorties 4. Surveys
5. Surveys 5. Social media/internet

Both respondents ranked television and radio as primary sources of political information.
They constantly watch or listen to the news broadcast of leading networks such as GMA 7, ABS-
CBN and TV5. Social media/internet was ranked 2 nd to Respondent A since she has access to an
Internet Service Provider (ISP) as opposed to Respondent B who is computer illiterate.

Print media is accessible to both respondents. Respondent A is however partial to

broadsheet newspaper while Respondent B reads the local paper printed by the LGU (usually
partisan newspaper) or tabloids.

Respondent B regularly attends campaign sorties as an elected Kagawad of the

Barangay while Respondent A hardly gets invited and does not have the time to voluntarily
attend such. The later does not believe it wise to be personally identified with partisan politics.

Respondent A do not get surveyed either by the leading agencies such as SWS or Pulse
Asia. Respondent B was rarely surveyed, if does, it was by an agency commissioned by the LGU.

The following is the comparative ranking of the respondents as to the basis of their
voting for a candidate/s.
Respondent A Respondent B

1. Integrity 1. Integrity
2. Advocacy/ principles 2. Qualifications
3. Qualifications 3. Advocacy/ principles
4. Popularity 4. Popularity
5. Personal affiliation 5. Personal affiliation

The basis for voting a candidate is generally the same to both respondents with integrity
being ranked as the highest. Popularity and personal affiliation ranked at the same level with
both of them. Only advocacy/principles and qualifications are ranked differently with each.

Respondent B gave premium to qualification than advocacy/principles. For her, a leader

should first have the qualifications. She apparently perceives highly-educated candidates as
effective and capable.

Respondent A on the other, is more interested in the candidates advocacy/ principles

than qualifications. She expressed her contention associating education and efficiency. She
personally perceives that efficiency is a matter of attitude and not education. She concludes that
it is best if both qualities are integrated in a candidate. Her preference for a candidate who has
the advocacy and stands on principles indicates her awareness of political issues and a
comprehensive view of governance which the other respondent lacks.

CONCLUSION:

There are many factors that can apparently influence the outcome of the 2016 election.
Social class definitely is just one of them. Yet it cannot, as in our interview, significantly dictate
or alter voters’ perceptions on the upcoming election.

We have historically observed changes in class voting since 1946 to the present. They
were generated over a long period of time (e.g. Martial Law years) or by short-term political
events (e.g. EDSA Revolution), we could agree that class voting still persists, to some degree, in
the Philippines.

There has been considerable interest in the changing pattern of class voting in western
democracies (see, for example, the volume edited by Evans, 1999). A number of writers argue
that there has been a long-term process of ‘class dealignment’ with social classes becoming
increasingly similar in their voting patterns (Sarlvik and Crewe, 1983; Franklin, 1985a, 1985b;
Clark and Lipset, 1991; Nieuwbeerta and De Graaf, 1999). Others have argued that the pattern
is merely one of “trendless fluctuation” (Heath et al., 1985, 1991; Weakliem, 1989; see also Hout
et al.,1993).

The media will perhaps have the most impact on voting behavior since it does affect the
perceptions of people from across social class. It is the main source of information about
government and political issues. It also contributes to the democratic process as it encourages
awareness amongst the public. Either social class is accessible to both broadcast media (e.g. TV,
radio) and print media (e.g. broadsheet or tabloid). The voters’ perceptions, whatever social
class, shall be shaped by what they watch, hear and read.

REFERENCES:

Is Voting Behaviour Determined by Social Class? (essay) By Patrick Hinton

Reforming the Philippine Political Party System: Ideas and Initiatives, debates and dynamics,
2009, Published by the (FES) Friedrich Ebert Stiftung

Road To Philippine Elections 2016: The Presidential Candidates by Donald Borja Sevilla. Posted
by The Bohol Tribune April 28, 2015

Social Class and Voting: A Multi-Level Analysis of Individual And Constituency Differences
By Robert Andersen and Anthony Heath

Voting Behaviour: Various Approaches and Determinants of Voting Behaviour (essay) by Puja
Mondal

The End of Class Politics? Class Voting in Comparative Context. Oxford University Press, edited
by G. Evans