At last, a Senator against the surveys

For a long time now, surveys ruled the roost as it were, setting the political agenda. Since these surveyors proclaim their work as based on a “scientific” method, there was no room for protest. Their findings and predictions were “always right.” With the herd mentality of Filipinos, they have been able to influence many to go with the crowd. If Pulse Asia says the most popular presidential candidate is Noli de Castro, then he has a built advantage in the race.

The way I understand it, surveys are often commissioned by candidates to know how they stand and in what areas they are weak. In this sense it is a diagnostic tool. But surveys can also be commissioned as a political tool and that is what Senator Richard Gordon objects to — the use of surveys as a vehicle for mind conditioning.

Gordon was left out of Pulse Asia’s list of “nine winnable presidential candidates in 2010.” He may have a personal stake in protesting against surveys but he opens an important cause for dispute on how these surveys should be regarded. I think there is every reason to investigate the surveyors and to formulate laws to curb its abuse.

This column supports Senator Gordon’s protest against surveys as political tools and more. He should be publicly supported for the effort to ensure the proper use of surveys. The investigation should be widened especially on its use for “mind conditioning” purposes on other issues.

The most important issue, to my mind, is the way surveys have been used to condition the public mind that Filipinos do not want Charter change. I happen to know personally from a reliable source that ‘surveyors can be used as allies’ for whatever results are desired by the client for political purposes. If that is the case, you may ask why has pro-Charter change advocates not used the same vehicle? Here we enter dangerous grounds because the interests setting the political agenda in the Philippines are too powerful and way beyond any local political cause to surmount.

Recently, Pulse Asia, Inc revealed findings that said almost 4 out of 10 were against Charter change. It says nothing about the 6 others but at the same time said that more than 50 percent were unaware and did not know what Charter change was all about.   

SWS said two out of three Filipinos or 66 percent are against Charter change “if it would allow the extension of the term of President Arroyo.” Therein lies the mind-conditioning that deduces Charter change as nothing but the extension of the term of President Arroyo. That has profoundly affected any advocacy of Charter change. It is being used to foreclose democratic debate just when we need it most — discussion on the differences between parliamentary and presidential government. Indeed, the debates in Congress have become nothing more than a contest between the government and the opposition.

It will certainly help to know that other countries with presidential governments have come to grief by continuing with the system even if it has obviously failed them. This was true of many Latin American countries where presidential systems descended to military dictatorships. Having said that does not mean that the presidential system is without merit. What is being deplored is the lack of will to look into how a parliamentary system may have the answers to many of our electoral difficulties.

As Senator Gordon correctly said “election is not about popularity, money, or political party. It is about the careful choosing of our nation’s next leaders who should have clear vision and right values, and the competence, integrity and reliability.”

How? The presidential system we now have precisely given rise to popularity and money as the standards for getting elected. I am not sure I agree with him about political parties because I think parties are important in a parliamentary contest of programs of government.

The logic of Gordon’s statement against surveys supports the advocacy for Charter change that would elect party programs, not personality contests.

Presidential elections in 2010 as we now have it will be about popularity and money that will elect our leaders come 2010 no matter how hard we wish it should not. That is the nature of the system.

In a sense Senator Gordon’s cause is also the cause of Charter change advocates. I wonder if he would come out openly to say that given the mind conditioning that has been created against Charter change. Indeed, the 2010 elections under the present presidential system cannot help but be a coronation and the surveys have made sure it comes to that.  

Unlike the senator, I am not convinced that electing our leaders in 2010 is just a matter of decision by the whole electorate and not by surveys on a few. The senator may wish to go into the composition of our electorate and why it works against electing people for their abilities and talents.

But I would agree with him that Filipino voters are becoming more mature but this will not be enough. Some may have become more mature but the overwhelming numbers will vote according to the money in their pockets.

The Gordon diatribe against surveys has opened an important case for legislative investigation. It will be a real investigation in aid of legislation if he so chooses.

If he does, then he would be doing something greater than just winning a presidential election, he will be a reformer and leave a legacy for future generations of Filipinos.