politics of performance, public perception and popularity
pdi's news section today is a very interesting read. not necessarily because of the headlines on the frontpage, but because of some news and opinion items which presents an issue (both socio-political and media-wise) that has been seemingly obscured by our characteristic uh.. 'social activism', albeit double standard.
after reading the frontpage news, i always read the paper from back to front. it's a habit i had since i was a kid (and yes, i've been reading the newspaper since i was a kid, even though i didn't really understood much of it and was often only after the comics page and the pictures). and i found three interesting items that paint an issue worth looking at.
first, at the opinion section, a certain eugene guarin, wrote a letter ot the editor criticizing pdi's july 19 editorial titled, "most unpopular leader," which is some sort of great timing too, since just yesterday, sws released another round of satisfaction rating that posted another negative for gma. intriguingly (and i do say 'intriguingly' with much curiosity with what pdi editors did), his letter was billed "popularity does not necessarily make for a good leader". while guarin said that he's not pro-gma, he said that gma should be given due credit for making tough and unpopular choices that were necessary for the country (circumstantial or for the long-term, i suppose); in his words, "all i know is that a good leader is someone who knows the way, walks the way and shows the way. and this 'little giant' called gloria macapagal-arroyo is leading the way."
but it got more interesting when he touched two socio-political and developmental issues, which i think was really called for - on the one hand, he claimed that protests and propagandas against gma have "lost their credibility because they are baseless" and that these people have abused the "priveleges" of democracy; on the other, he quipped, "if we reduce leadership to a popularity contest, in what direction would the philippines be going? commentaries, news reports, 'surveys' (quoted with srcastic emphasis perhaps?) and propaganda about popularity will not help filipinos select their future leaders wisely."
it's interesting because he actually opened some sort of layman discourse on the prevailing (if not recurring) issues in philippine democratization (an abuse, if not misuse of freedom and neglect of social responsibility) and that this in fact contributes to the persistent problem of romanticizing the politician as a savior and neglecting that government works as an institution. the funnier thing is, the people who are actually against gma, which in this case would constitute those who abuse the "priveleges" of democracy, are the ones supposedly heralding the public to vote wisely.
second, pdi's editorial today sketches a comparison of gma and marcos (again). pointing similarities in corruption and extrajudicial killings, the editorial's factual account is actually convincing. it ends with some sort of a warning on the possibility that gma might find a way to declare martial law (like marcos) or perpetuate herself in power through constitutional changes (without having to declare martial law). while i understand where they're coming from and that i don't dismiss their foretelling as mere paranoia, i think the editorial left out (again) on an important factor that most people seem to miss - having a free media now amplifies perception and such was absent during martial law.
this is not to say, of course, that the facts they metioned on the amount supposedly corrupted by gma's government and the number of extrajudicial killings in her term is false (though i do have some reservations on the estimates and counts, since they compared data from international sources on marcos with rather leftist sources on gma; not that i'm simply doubting the left, but in guarin's words, they are "politically motivated"), but that they may have been amplified, purposedly or otherwise, by the massive information now allowed to circulate through a free media.
and i seriously think that's one factor that should be considered in reading surveys - while gma may be the most unpopular president beased on perception surveys today, the fact that people know more about scandals because of a free (and rather agressive) media should also be factored in. the absence of such during marcos' time and the rather 'supportive' press (for lack of a better term) during aquino's suggests that people's perception on their governance were tilted to certain inclinations, which when compared in a time series with others (ramos, erap and gma) seems to be favorable.
third, an article on the second frontpage titled "survey says pinoys happy with programs, not gma" reveals that the latest sws survey on satisfaction ratings, which results were released yesterday, were actually commissioned by the government (a vital point, i think, that wasn't mentioned in the tv news reports.. but which also explains why press secretary jesus dureza yesterday said that these results are a guide to the government, a tune very different from the administration's usual dismissal of surveys). the survey was apparently commisioned by representative danilo suarez of quezon.
in the survey (as i mentioned in an earlier entry), gma and her cabinet got negative ratings, but government programs generally got positive ones. this seeming contradicting results highlight the issues brought up by guarin's letter and the editorial. in fact, suarez actually tied the issue up when he explained why gma's ratings are still negative despite the high public appreciation for her government's programs (of course, aside from the populist explanation). he said, "our belief is that when you open the radio and when you read the broadsheets and when you watch tv from six in the morning up to the wee hours, the high rating programs hit the administration every day." he even added (as the report said) "that with the 2010 elections fast approaching, some media groups and candidates believe criticizing the administration is one sure way of getting their own popularity ratings pick up." and he actually made a lot of sense.
from a socio-political perspective, i think these news items highlight the fact that an abuse of "priveleges" of democracy, or what i would like to refer to as overdemocratization, actually impedes the growth and development of a democratic country, not only in economic terms, but in every aspect of society, especially cultural or mindset-wise. this is where i think the filipinos' long tradition and romantization of 'social activism' (or vanguadism to some extent and circumstances) becomes more of a democratic liability.
i remember when i attended the international conference on philippine studies some two weeks ago, the opening plenary of the second day touched on the researcher being grounded on some sort of activism. this is already happening in the country with many researchers and think tanks affiliated with activist groups and some, even partisan interests (like ibon foundation and karapatan who seems to be allied with the left). but there's nothing wrong with this per se.
in contrast, however, when i was in the third graduate forum of the asia research institute in the national university of singapore just last week, keynote speaker dewi fortuna anwar (a renowned political scientist in southeast asia) said that while researchers may be grounded in activist purposes, it would be more advisable for them to remain non-partisan, in the sense of being uninvolved in civil society groups. she was very candid and very clear about it too - it is hard (that is if you can) to expect a partisan researcher to present objective results. her talk actually touched on how southeast asian history was shaped and reshaped by researchers, particularly economists, political scientists and their tensions.
from a media perspective, on the other hand, these news items highlight the need for (and appreciaion for) communication research. the proliferation of news in the free media and its effects on public perception have been neglected by many political scientists. while they assume effect, they also neglect the need for empirical studies that would prove or disprove some assumptions and uncover some new facts (if any).
in fact, i think merely assuming mass media effect as such or even as existent is very hyperbullet. and hyperbullet is dead. this then presents a huge research gap that communication and media studies could fill in (sadly, even the philippines communication society or any university communication department, with considerable exception towards the university of the philippine's communication research department, fails to see this or falis to act on this). even as they may realize it, the absence of proactive action towards the research gap only justifies a culture of research impunity in the field, if not actually lack of capacity.
after reading the frontpage news, i always read the paper from back to front. it's a habit i had since i was a kid (and yes, i've been reading the newspaper since i was a kid, even though i didn't really understood much of it and was often only after the comics page and the pictures). and i found three interesting items that paint an issue worth looking at.
first, at the opinion section, a certain eugene guarin, wrote a letter ot the editor criticizing pdi's july 19 editorial titled, "most unpopular leader," which is some sort of great timing too, since just yesterday, sws released another round of satisfaction rating that posted another negative for gma. intriguingly (and i do say 'intriguingly' with much curiosity with what pdi editors did), his letter was billed "popularity does not necessarily make for a good leader". while guarin said that he's not pro-gma, he said that gma should be given due credit for making tough and unpopular choices that were necessary for the country (circumstantial or for the long-term, i suppose); in his words, "all i know is that a good leader is someone who knows the way, walks the way and shows the way. and this 'little giant' called gloria macapagal-arroyo is leading the way."
but it got more interesting when he touched two socio-political and developmental issues, which i think was really called for - on the one hand, he claimed that protests and propagandas against gma have "lost their credibility because they are baseless" and that these people have abused the "priveleges" of democracy; on the other, he quipped, "if we reduce leadership to a popularity contest, in what direction would the philippines be going? commentaries, news reports, 'surveys' (quoted with srcastic emphasis perhaps?) and propaganda about popularity will not help filipinos select their future leaders wisely."
it's interesting because he actually opened some sort of layman discourse on the prevailing (if not recurring) issues in philippine democratization (an abuse, if not misuse of freedom and neglect of social responsibility) and that this in fact contributes to the persistent problem of romanticizing the politician as a savior and neglecting that government works as an institution. the funnier thing is, the people who are actually against gma, which in this case would constitute those who abuse the "priveleges" of democracy, are the ones supposedly heralding the public to vote wisely.
second, pdi's editorial today sketches a comparison of gma and marcos (again). pointing similarities in corruption and extrajudicial killings, the editorial's factual account is actually convincing. it ends with some sort of a warning on the possibility that gma might find a way to declare martial law (like marcos) or perpetuate herself in power through constitutional changes (without having to declare martial law). while i understand where they're coming from and that i don't dismiss their foretelling as mere paranoia, i think the editorial left out (again) on an important factor that most people seem to miss - having a free media now amplifies perception and such was absent during martial law.
this is not to say, of course, that the facts they metioned on the amount supposedly corrupted by gma's government and the number of extrajudicial killings in her term is false (though i do have some reservations on the estimates and counts, since they compared data from international sources on marcos with rather leftist sources on gma; not that i'm simply doubting the left, but in guarin's words, they are "politically motivated"), but that they may have been amplified, purposedly or otherwise, by the massive information now allowed to circulate through a free media.
and i seriously think that's one factor that should be considered in reading surveys - while gma may be the most unpopular president beased on perception surveys today, the fact that people know more about scandals because of a free (and rather agressive) media should also be factored in. the absence of such during marcos' time and the rather 'supportive' press (for lack of a better term) during aquino's suggests that people's perception on their governance were tilted to certain inclinations, which when compared in a time series with others (ramos, erap and gma) seems to be favorable.
third, an article on the second frontpage titled "survey says pinoys happy with programs, not gma" reveals that the latest sws survey on satisfaction ratings, which results were released yesterday, were actually commissioned by the government (a vital point, i think, that wasn't mentioned in the tv news reports.. but which also explains why press secretary jesus dureza yesterday said that these results are a guide to the government, a tune very different from the administration's usual dismissal of surveys). the survey was apparently commisioned by representative danilo suarez of quezon.
in the survey (as i mentioned in an earlier entry), gma and her cabinet got negative ratings, but government programs generally got positive ones. this seeming contradicting results highlight the issues brought up by guarin's letter and the editorial. in fact, suarez actually tied the issue up when he explained why gma's ratings are still negative despite the high public appreciation for her government's programs (of course, aside from the populist explanation). he said, "our belief is that when you open the radio and when you read the broadsheets and when you watch tv from six in the morning up to the wee hours, the high rating programs hit the administration every day." he even added (as the report said) "that with the 2010 elections fast approaching, some media groups and candidates believe criticizing the administration is one sure way of getting their own popularity ratings pick up." and he actually made a lot of sense.
from a socio-political perspective, i think these news items highlight the fact that an abuse of "priveleges" of democracy, or what i would like to refer to as overdemocratization, actually impedes the growth and development of a democratic country, not only in economic terms, but in every aspect of society, especially cultural or mindset-wise. this is where i think the filipinos' long tradition and romantization of 'social activism' (or vanguadism to some extent and circumstances) becomes more of a democratic liability.
i remember when i attended the international conference on philippine studies some two weeks ago, the opening plenary of the second day touched on the researcher being grounded on some sort of activism. this is already happening in the country with many researchers and think tanks affiliated with activist groups and some, even partisan interests (like ibon foundation and karapatan who seems to be allied with the left). but there's nothing wrong with this per se.
in contrast, however, when i was in the third graduate forum of the asia research institute in the national university of singapore just last week, keynote speaker dewi fortuna anwar (a renowned political scientist in southeast asia) said that while researchers may be grounded in activist purposes, it would be more advisable for them to remain non-partisan, in the sense of being uninvolved in civil society groups. she was very candid and very clear about it too - it is hard (that is if you can) to expect a partisan researcher to present objective results. her talk actually touched on how southeast asian history was shaped and reshaped by researchers, particularly economists, political scientists and their tensions.
from a media perspective, on the other hand, these news items highlight the need for (and appreciaion for) communication research. the proliferation of news in the free media and its effects on public perception have been neglected by many political scientists. while they assume effect, they also neglect the need for empirical studies that would prove or disprove some assumptions and uncover some new facts (if any).
in fact, i think merely assuming mass media effect as such or even as existent is very hyperbullet. and hyperbullet is dead. this then presents a huge research gap that communication and media studies could fill in (sadly, even the philippines communication society or any university communication department, with considerable exception towards the university of the philippine's communication research department, fails to see this or falis to act on this). even as they may realize it, the absence of proactive action towards the research gap only justifies a culture of research impunity in the field, if not actually lack of capacity.