Post on 08-Feb-2023
Voting Behavior of Teachers
Feliece I. Yeban, Benjamin Domingcil, Jr. Jose Ocampo, and Minda Valencia
(Researcher-‐Authors)
Lydia Maravilla Aggarao, Florisa Simeon, Evangeline Martin, Remedios Ong,
Nelson Ines, Enrico Garcia, Diony Rivas, and Lara Pantig (Field Researchers)
Introduction
An election is a formal decision-‐making process by which a population chooses
individuals to hold public offices. As a democratic country, the Philippines has the
framework and capacity to conduct this political exercise. A case in point is the recent
2013 Philippine midterm election which seat 12 senators, 229 members of the House of
Representatives, and thousands of local officials, who enter office with legitimacy and
political capital.
Election results have shown that many of the winners belong to “Team PNoy,” or the
team of incumbent President Benigno S. Aquino. This means that President Aquino
continues to have a hand on the political and economic reform agenda as he enters the
second half of his term, which ends in 2016. The midterm election has undeniably
indicated the popularity of the reformist President, who also assumed office with an
unprecedented mandate from the electorate.
The most provoking questions about an election are not pertaining to who won but why
people voted the way they did or what the implications of the results are. The most
extensive study ever conducted on the Filipino voting behavior was conducted by the
Institute for Political Reform in 1995 and updated in 2003. The research found four
factors that determine how the Filipino voter chooses his candidates namely (1)
candidate’s popularity and public image, (2) endorsement of traditional networks and
organizations, (3) characteristics that can benefit the voter, and (4) party program.
The IPER study though comprehensive did not look into variations in the voting behavior
of different sectors. The teacher sector particularly, is an interesting sector to look at.
Apart from directly managing the polling precincts, teachers, next to parents, are agents
of political socialization. They influence the political knowledge and attitudes of
students. Empirical findings from different fields show that primary school pupils are
already politically, morally and democratically involved (2006). The power of teachers
and educators to shape students’ political attitude and consciousness makes an
investigation of the teachers’ voting behavior an interesting research topic. Their voting
behavior reveals a lot about their civic and political consciousness which will inevitably
have an impact on their students. How do our teachers vote? Is their vote similar to how
the majority vote? The election in May 2013 was used as venue to seek answers to such
questions. Hopefully, insights drawn from the study can be used to improve the civic
and political education of teachers.
This study aimed to examine the voting behavior of teachers in the 2013 midterm
election. It attempted both to describe and analyze the various elements that
determine and influence the teachers’ decision to vote for certain candidates, through
the use of quantitative and qualitative research techniques. A survey questionnaire was
administered to a sample population or 20 percent of the total number of graduate
students and 3rd and 4th year undergraduate students of the Philippine Normal
University and its four other campuses. The survey was conducted among the sample
population. They were requested to fill out questionnaires to generate a general
understanding of voting behavior. The responses were quantified using the statistical
packages of the social sciences.
To validate the results of the survey and to gain deeper understanding of voters’
behavior, the researchers utilized qualitative techniques such as interview, and several
focus group discussions. These were also administered to a selected group of students
in all the PNU campuses. These techniques were used to ensure a “high quality and
richer data” which may not be captured and included in the survey.
An overview of Filipino “relationship politics”
Philippine politics is widely known to be highly personalistic, i.e., Filipinos vote based on
the personal characteristics of candidates and lacking in genuine party politics.
Politicians change party allegiance depending on which “party” or alliance is in power.
Parties may change their name to accommodate alliances of personalities. What it has is
a complicated network of layers upon layers of social relationships based on affinity or
ritual. Relationships could be based on blood, affinity, rituals, fraternities, social
network, religious affiliation, or even admiration for a sports or tv/movie personality.
Party programs are not very well differentiated except perhaps for progressive or
perceived left-‐leaning organizations which usually participate in the party list elections.
The patron client relations framework is the dominant model used in understanding
Philippine electoral politics. In this view, political leaders (the patron) who usually
belong to the wealthier strata of society acquire power by positioning themselves as
providers and even peddlers of material and other benefits to the poorer sectors (the
client). In return, the client assures the patron of his vote. This relationship is borne out
of the kinship system which is based on affinity and ritual. One’s kinship network is
one’s social capital that facilitates or inhibits one’s social mobility. An individual’s ability
to connect to the “network” or “sakop” of the elite paves the way for political and
economic opportunities. The elite take it upon themselves to distribute to their “sakop”
the “wealth” of the network. The members of the network support the network by
contributing to the network’s leader/s their loyalty and support. This “sakop” mentality
aptly explains political family feud, the need for money during elections to “support” the
“hoard” working at the “grassroots”. This “sakop” relationship creates parochial
expectations and obligations.
According to the IPER study, this view of Philippine politics is gradually being seen as
inadequate to fully explain the evolving behavior of the Filipino electorate. The clan
politics that was dominant during the early years of the Republic until the end of the
Marcos era in 1986 shares center stage with “celebrity politics” that saw television and
movie personalities getting elected to office. This trend however, dipped after the
ouster of President Joseph Estrada, a very popular former movie actor turned politician,
in 2001 due to accusations of corruption and bad governance. The 2007 elections results
showed the tempering of politics based on popularity with the losses at the polls of big
named personalities. An extensive study of the 2010 and 2013 results is yet to be done.
It can be surmised, however that the Filipino voting behavior is evolving which confirms
the major concerns raised by researchers characterizing voting research – that voting
patterns change over time.
Lessons From Cognitive Science
Findings in voting research seem to point that people are driven in the voting booth by
their feelings which reflect the extent to which their interests and values are
represented (Westen, 2010). Accordingly, voters have four critical questions in mind
that shape their choice of candidates. One, who among the candidates share the values
that matter to the voter. Two, who among the candidates can be trusted. Three, who
among the candidates have the personal qualities of integrity, leadership, and
competence. And four, what is their stand on the issues that matter to the voter.
Another set of findings that is worth noting Is the view that citizens often rely on
cognitive heuristics (or shortcuts) to guide their political decisions (e.g., Sniderman,
Brody, & Tetlock, 1991). Popkin (1991) uses the term “low-‐information rationality,” to
refer to the citizens’ use of “information shortcuts and rules of thumbs” (p. 7). What this
means is, voters do not usually have access and cannot always process the complete set
of information and knowledge about the candidates and the socio-‐political context
required to make the most “objective and informed choice”. They will rely on their gut
or “pakiramdam” depending on how the candidates “appear” to them. Scientists have
discovered “mirror neurons” that provide explanation to the phenomenon of enabling
us to “sense” if people talking to us are sincere or not. The mirror neuron systems allow
us to experience other people’s intentions (Western, 2010). The media and the
campaign strategy that “package” the candidates will inevitably influence the
“information” received by the voters about the candidates. Hayes et al (2009), found that
television has personalized‖ voting behavior by encouraging citizens to vote on the basis of
candidates’ image and personality. The candidates who are able to weave a narrative of
themselves that appeal to both the minds and hearts of the voters will win. The story
should be compelling and something that voters can identify with and feel for. Westen
(2010) argues that “elections are won and lost not primarily on issues but on the values
and emotions of the electorate”.
The Teachers’ “Pet”
Table 1 shows who did the teachers vote for in the May 2013 Congressional elections:
Elected Senators Teachers' Choice 1.Grace Poe 1.Francis Chiz Escudero 52% 2. Loren Legarda 2. Grace Poe 46% 3.Francis Chiz Escudero 3. Edgardo Sonny Angara 44% 4. Allan Peter Cayetano 4. Benigno Bam Aquino 39% 5. Nancy Binay 5. Ed Hagedorn 37% 6.Edgardo Sonny Angara 6. Dick Gordon 37% 7. Benigno Bam Aquino 7. Allan Peter Cayetano 36% 8. Koko Pimentel 8. Loren Legarda 33% 9. Antonio Trillanes 9. Risa Hontiveros 31% 10. Cynthia Villar 10. Antonio Trillanes 30% 11. JV Ejercito 11. Koko Pimentel 27% 12. Gregorio Honasan 12. Cynthia Villar 22%
It is noteworthy, however, that while majority of those favored by the respondents won,
there were three (3) senatorial candidates voted by the respondents who lost in their
senatorial bid. These were Ed Hagedorn, Dick Gordon, and Risa Hontiveros. Two (2) of
the losing candidates were from the opposition parties and one (1) was from Team
Pinoy, the incumbent President’s team. This suggests that while the respondents
generally favored the line up of the administration, they also chose other senatorial
candidates for various reasons. The succeeding sections will tackle the issue. The
qualitative data gathered from the focus group discussion and interviews provided the
insights that explain this phenomenon. The questionnaire included questions about
why they voted for each of the candidates of their choice. Below are the salient
features of the responses:
It can also be gleaned from the list that there were four (4) women senators who were
chosen by the respondents. All of them won in the national election except one (1)
candidate.
Reasons for Choice of Senatorial Candidates
This section discusses the reasons for the respondents’ choice of senatorial candidates.
They were asked to explain what made them vote for each of their chosen candidates.
1. Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero
Senator Chiz Escudero was the most favored senatorial candidate among the
respondents. Almost all the respondents were of the opinion that he won because of
his credibility and integrity as a senator. His impeccable track record as a lawmaker has
proven that he could indeed serve the country. They agreed that Escudero was a
competent and seasoned legislator.
The respondents also answered that they voted for Escudero because of his advocacy
and programs on education as well as his stand against political dynasty. They all agreed
that Escudero was incorruptible and that the Senate still needed him.
A lot of respondents also thought that Escudero garnered the highest votes in the
senatorial election because of his physical and social traits. Escudero had an edge over
the other candidates because he was seen as charismatic, good looking and young. He
was also described as very articulate, intelligent, smart, and witty. As an aside, his
family background was a contributing factor for his success. Almost all the respondents
said that these traits were bolstered with his association with Heart Evangelista, a young
actress, and contributed to his immense popularity and winnability.
(The foregoing shows that while Escudero comes from a political family, a trait which is
taken with disdain by the Filipino electorate, the respondents still look for certain
qualities in a candidate. In this case, the voters thought that being credible, young,
intelligent, and good looking would be an asset as a legislator. In addition, the advocacy
of the candidate matters among the voters.)
2. Senator Grace Poe
Majority of the respondents said that they voted for Senator Grace Poe because of her
good track record as chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and Classification
Board (MTRCB). She was believed to be a woman of credibility and integrity.
Others perceived her to be humble, intelligent, good natured, respectful, and smart. She
was seen as genuinely concerned with the poor sector of society. There were also those
who were impressed with her educational attainment.
These traits were believed to have come from her good family background. The
respondents agreed that since Poe comes from a reputable family, she is also
trustworthy. As the daughter of the late Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ), a former actor and a
former presidential candidate, they believed that she can continue her father’s legacy
and advocacy.
Most of the respondents also replied that they chose Poe because of the popularity of
her family, especially her father. Some even revealed that they voted for her out of
sympathy to her father’s untimely demise because he lost in the 2004 presidential
election. The latter was allegedly cheated in the said election.
Poe’s success could also be attributed to her political media campaigns. Her frequent
exposure in the media as “Anak ni FPJ” had proven to be effective in capturing the
voters’ interests.
Almost all the respondents also agreed that since Poe is a new face, with a good and
new platform, she can contribute to a clean and transparent form of government. Poe
was perceived to show potential as a good leader and a senator.
(This goes to show that voters are looking for alternative leaders. That is, leaders who
are not the usual traditional politicians (trapos), but young leaders (new and fresh faces)
who have the competence and integrity to serve the people. Much emphasis is also
given to the advocacy of the candidate. Not to be discounted is the “sentimental and
sympathy” factors that influenced the voters’ decision.)
3. Senator Edgardo Sonny Angara
When asked why they voted for Senator Edgardo Sonny Angara, almost all the
respondents answered that they were impressed with Angara’s credibility, track record,
and good performance as a legislator. While in Congress, he authored and helped in
passing into law the Magna Carta of Women.
All the respondents also agreed that they voted for Angara because of his platform and
advocacy on education. They cited Angara’s advocacy on educational reforms and
support for teachers’ rights. As teachers, they said that they would certainly benefit
from Angara’s platform.
In addition, most respondents mentioned about his good family background. Since his
father did a good job in the Senate, he could also influence the younger Angara to do
the same. As an aside, some observed that there was never a negative feedback about
him.
Majority also cited other factors why they voted for Angara. He was perceived as
competent, smart, honest, highly educated, responsible, and trustworthy. In addition,
they mentioned the need for a new face like Angara in the Senate.
There were respondents who revealed that they voted for Angara because of
endorsements. Some said that Angara was endorsed by equally popular and good
looking young stars such as Coco Martin and Sarah Geronimo. While some revealed
that they chose him because of the endorsement of the head of their church, others
mentioned that their parent influenced them to vote for him.
(The foregoing shows the benefit factor as an essential factor that informed the voters’
decision. Angara had a solid voters’ base, the teachers, because of his advocacy on
education. This is bolstered by his educational and family background, physical
characteristics and endorsement of popular figures and traditional networks.)
4. Senator Benigno Bam Aquino
All the respondents cited that they chose Senator Benigno Bam Aquino because of his
relationship with the President of the Philippines. Having come from a family of
politicians with credible and good reputation had influenced the respondents to vote for
him. They said that the track record of the Aquinos in serving the country had been
tested though time and another Aquino in the government would be favorable for the
country.
Majority of the respondents also mentioned that his platforms would definitely benefit
the youth. They specifically cited his advocacy on education and entrepreneurship for
the young people.
Moreover, the young Aquino was himself perceived as an achiever. He had a good track
record as a youth ambassador and very knowledgeable about business and finance. In
addition, they voted for him because he was once an awardee as Ten Outstanding
Young Men (TOYM) of the Philippines.
While Aquino is still young, this trait was perceived by the respondents as an advantage
over other candidates. They said that the Senate needed a new blood and a new face so
as to infuse a breath of fresh and new ideas in the institution. They believed that in spite
of his age, Aquino seemed passionate to help realize the “tuwid na daan” (straight path)
plans of the President. Aquino was perceived as clean, honest, incorruptible, intelligent,
and trustworthy. Almost all the respondents also said that Aquino had all the potential
to be a political leader.
(The foregoing implies that voters are indeed on the look out for new look in politics.,
i.e., young but competent and intelligent leaders/politicians, with no nonsense
advocacy. Equally important is the political lineage and the political machinery)
5. Mr. Ed Hagedorn
Mr. Hagedorn was one of the senatorial candidates who was voted by the respondents
but unfortunately lost in the election. When the teachers were asked why they voted
for him, they said that his impressive track record as mayor of Puerto Princesa City in
Palawan left an indelible mark on them. Under his leadership, Palawan became a
favorite tourist destination. It was also during his term, according to the respondents,
that the Underground River in Palawan was chosen as one of the Seven Wonders of the
World. The respondents agreed that his track record, credibility, and experience as a
local chief executive would be useful should he assume a national post.
Moreso, most of the respondents answered that they favored Hagedorn because of his
advocacy on the environment. They also mentioned of Hagedorn’s program to promote
tourism.
The respondents argued that the Senate needed a new face and a new name. For them,
Hagedorn was the man because of his dedication to his work and intelligence. They
believed that Hagedorn had all the potential of being a good leader and that his feat in
Palawan could be duplicated in the Senate.
Be that as it may, Hagedorn did not make it in the mid-‐term election. When asked
about the possible reasons for his failed bid in Senate, the respondents said that he was
not that popular. He might be well known in his province but not in the entire country.
Others were of the opinion that since he ran as an independent candidate, he had no
political party to support him. With no political machinery to back him up, some
respondents observed that Hagedorn did not have enough resources such as media
exposure, advertisements, posters, flyers and other election materials during the
campaign.
(The foregoing indicates that there are cases when competence, credibility and
dedication are not enough to win in a national election. As a new player in a national
election, the importance of a political party and its machinery and resources cannot be
over emphasized. The latter is important to ensure the candidate’s reach of influence
especially in far flung areas of the country.)
6. Mr. Dick Gordon
Mr. Gordon was voted by the respondents because of his track record and credibility as
a (public) servant leader. According to them, in all the posts (e.g., as mayor or as chair,
among others) that Gordon had assumed, he proved to be very competent, dedicated,
responsible, and trustworthy. Sometimes called as “the action man” or “walk the talk
man”, Gordon was known to get things done excellently. They thought highly of Gordon
as having the political will and integrity to provide good services to the people.
With or without a government position, the respondents mentioned that Gordon was
always ready to extend help to those in need. He was also very visible and always the
first person to respond during calamities.
The respondents also said that they voted for Gordon because of his notable advocacy
on health, tourism, environment and women’s rights. Should he win in the election, his
programs would certainly help the Filipino people.
Others also mentioned that they favored Gordon over other candidates not only
because he was service and action oriented, but because of his intelligence and strong
personality. These sterling qualities had impressed even the elderly voters. Some
respondents revealed that they voted for Gordon because their grandparents asked
them to do so.
While Gordon was popular among the respondents, Gordon did not muster enough
votes from the electorate to get a seat in the Senate. He landed number 13 in the
election, losing only by a few thousand votes to be in the magic 12. When asked about
the reasons for losing in the election, the respondents said that it might be due to the
lack of extensive political machinery.
Others cited that some people might think that even if he was popular, his
accomplishments were not really impressive. Some answered that he lacked
advertisements and election posters and similar materials during the campaign. Hence,
Filipinos in some parts of the country might not even know that he was running as
senator. Related to this, some respondents observed that his campaign advertisement
was not good and even found it “funny”. Media’s depiction of his activities did not
appeal to the electorate.
There were also respondents who mentioned about Gordon being an American boy or
Amboy. As such, his allegiance to the country was questionable.
Some respondents answered that Gordon had a poor political strategy. He was not able
to get the support from a relative who also run as senator. Had he gotten the support
and that it was only him who ran for Senate, he would have garnered the winning votes.
7. Senator Allan Peter Cayetano
Sen. Allan Peter Cayetano was the eighth choice of the respondents. They said that they
voted for him because of his credibility, reliability and truthfulness. Many could easily
recall him as an opposition to former President Gloria Arroyo. They regard him as an
ideal leader who believes that transparency should prevail in the government. Among
those who won as senators, the respondents perceive him as the most active which also
indicates his good performance in government office.
He also comes from a political family but he is more associated with being relatively
young and a “fresh face”. His short stint in the Senate has a lot of impact because he
was involved in high profile issues.
8. Senator Loren Legards
The ninth choice of the respondents is Loren Legarda. She enjoys the trust of
respondents as they said that she is honest perhaps due to her reputation as a
newscaster. People look to newscasters as reputable and responsible in reporting
factual and accurate information on air. Her long years in the senate give respondents
an idea that she is very much tested when it comes to public service. She is identified
with environmental issues which seem to be an issue teachers feel very strongly about.
9. Ms. Risa Hontiveros
This candidate did not make it to the Magic 12 in the senate despite being the only
candidate who had identified her campaign with women issues. The women’s vote is
still not a fully developed bloc among the Filipino electorate. Hontiveros is revered by
the respondents as a person who has deep sense for advocacy. A known street
parliamentarian, Risa Hontiveros, is the 9th choice of participant-‐teachers. Though
unsuccessful during the recent mid-‐term elections, she earned the highest confidence of
teachers in relation to advocacy. Her activities revolve around anti-‐corruption, women
empowerment, and protection of human rights programs. She likewise attracted
considerable attention of teachers despite a beginner in the senatorial race. She is
perceived as a credible leader.
Her loss is attributed by teachers to her lack of machinery and her lack of popularity
among the “masa”.
10. Senator Antonio Trillanes
Sen. Antonio Trillanes is among the lead choices of teachers in the senate. He is
perceived as an emerging picture of idealism representing the underestimated sector of
the military. He figured in the ‘Oakwood Mutiny” that led to his incarceration. While
taking his time in jail he remained a vocal critique of former President Arroyo. This
eventually catapulted him to formally join the political arena. Teachers view Trillanes as
a better alternative to Honasan whose reputation and charisma that helped catapult
him to fame in 1986 seem to be in decline. He is perceived as a serious public servant,
clean, and is on a mission to combat corruption.
11. Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel
Sen. Koko Pimentel emerged as the 10th option of the respondents to serve in the
senate. The respondents’ perception about his credibility without a doubt can be
associated to his father who has served the country as an ally and cabinet secretary of
the late President Corazon Aquino. Besides, his father also served as a long time
lawmaker in the senate. His famous punch line as heir-‐apparent to his father being a
victim of “dagdag-‐bawas” on his first attempt in the senatorial elections could have
contributed to his successful comeback to get elected as a senator. Other than that, the
resignation of Senator Zubiri, whom he accused as beneficiary of election fraud created
more color and noise to Koko Pimentel’s name.
12. Senator Cynthia Villar
Another candidate whom teachers trust is Cynthia Villar. She is perceived to have good
track record not only in politics but even in business. Her realty industry involvement
and membership in congress could be behind her popularity. With so much idealism,
teachers chose her neither because she is the wife of Senator Manny Villar nor any
familial reason. Her platform concerning employment and livelihood for the poor has
captured teachers’ support.
It is interesting to note that teachers did not vote for three winning candidates, Nancy
Binay, Gringo Honasan, and JV Ejercito. Teachers did not view the candidates as lacking
in any one of the following factors namely competence, good reputation, and affiliation
with good political families or personalities.
Mr. Teddy Casino was among the top 15 choices of the respondents. It can be surmised
that there are groups among the teacher sector that are gradually embracing
progressive politics and have high regard for candidates who have profound principles
for the poor. His advocacy against corruption, human rights violation, and poverty left
teachers with tremendous easy recall of the name Teddy Casino. It is interesting to note
however, that teachers overwhelmingly voted for the Alliance of Concerned Teachers
(ACT) as their party list representative but this was not translated into a vote for Casino
who is associated with ACT. It can be surmised that teachers voted for the most
dominant teachers’ group but were not yet willing to vote to the senate someone who is
a known militant personality associated with the “left politics”.
Teachers’ Choice of Party List Table 2 shows the party list that teachers voted to represent them in Congress:
Party List frequency Percent Valid Percent
ACT 172 30.82% 51.19% A Teacher 33 5.91% 9.82% CIBAC 18 3.23% 5.36% BUHAY 16 2.87% 4.76% ATING GURO 12 2.15% 3.57% Gabriela 10 1.79% 2.98% AKBAYAN 8 1.43% 2.38% AGHAM 6 1.08% 1.79% UNA 6 1.08% 1.79%
ABAKADA 4 0.72% 1.19% Liberal 4 0.72% 1.19% Anakbayan 3 0.54% 0.89% Ang Profile 3 0.54% 0.89% Bayan Muna 3 0.54% 0.89% COOPNATCO 3 0.54% 0.89%
The table reflects that among those who responded on the question “Which party did
you vote for?” there are 172 or 51.19% who voted for ACT. During the survey, five out of
15 top party lists ostensibly represent teachers’ cause. They are composed of ACT, A
Teacher, Ating Guro, Agham, and ABAKADA. However Ating Guro, a neophyte political
group and Agham, a veteran organization failed to make it during the last election.
The teachers did not bother to ponder on the necessary considerations to vote for party
lists. However, there are a few who divulged that they want a representative in congress
who would vigorously pursue teachers’ welfare. A number of respondents said that they
voted for party lists because of the following: a) credibility, b) they were suggested by
family members/friends, and c) they used to conduct activities/programs for the benefit
of their constituents.
Mass media particularly the television has been very instrumental for introducing party
lists. For teachers, television provides a venue for more realistic and convincing
presentation of party lists and their programs. If there is one factor which is almost
identical to the impact of television to the respondents, it is the influence of family and
friends. Filipino teachers who live in a collectivist society still value the role of
relationships with their family members and friends. A party list therefore whose
bailiwick is composed of voters’ family members and friends, is assured of winning the
elections. Learning institutions are also a great source of persuasion for a party list to
get elected. This probably explains why there are a lot of party lists who introduce
themselves as representative of teachers. It should be noted that people who are in
schools have a lot of opportunities for getting to know party lists.
There are few teachers who said that they voted for party lists because of their
programs and services. It entails that party lists have to be visible by concretizing their
platforms. Even if they provide financial assistance or scholarships for students,
respondents feel that it is the least priority a member of congress has to do. Perhaps
party lists have to propose and pass laws which would benefit various sectors of the
society. It is very interesting to note that very few respondents elect party lists endorsed
by religious organizations. Perhaps it is along this line that teachers recognize the
separation of church and state.
Factors Determining Teachers’ Voting Behavior
The respondents answered invariably as to the reasons for their choice of senatorial
candidates. Based on the results of the survey, interview and focus group discussions,
several common themes emerged. Below is the table of comparing the factors identified
in the IPER study and the current study:
IPER Study PNU Study (1) Candidate’s popularity and public image (1) Personal Traits (2) Endorsement of traditional networks and organizations (2) Credibility and Reputation
(3) Characteristics that can benefit the voter (3) Advocacy
(4) Party program (4) Representative of "New Politics"
There are four (4) factors that influence teachers’ choice of candidates namely:
1. Personal Traits – The study showed that teachers vote for candidates who have
good educational background. They associate this with competence or aptitude
to lead. They also voted for “new comers” provided they have good educational
training and they project a pleasing personality or “charisma”. Grace Poe and
Bam Aquino both met these criteria. Bam Aquino exuded youthful and fresh
appeal to the teachers while Grace Poe was seen as calm and competent. They
were both seen as intelligent. Teachers were willing to give them a try despite
being new comers in the field.
2. Credibility and Reputation – The candidates’ reputation and credibility is
defined by his track record, family background, affiliations, commitment to
serve, and perception of trustworthiness. Generally, teachers prefer not to vote
for those who are not members of political families. However, given the roster of
official candidates, this is inevitable. They voted for Aquino, Angara, Gordon,
Pimentel, Villar, Escudero and Cayetano. But they did not vote for Ejercito,
Enrile, and Binay. They considered the track record of the candidate and their
political families. If they perceive such families as traditional and engaged in
corruption and abuse, teachers would not vote for their scion.
The track record of the candidates is important in being perceived as competent
despite being a member of a political family. Gordon and Hagedorn are both
considered as an “action man”. Their stint in government is remembered as
positive. They are both seen as leaders who are “mapamaraan” (ingenious) and
who can make things done. They both were perceived as disciplined and to have
a good work ethic. Their commitment to serve is valued by teachers. Angara,
Pimentel, Escudero, and Cayetano were viewed as competent and trustworthy.
Villar benefitted from a relatively good reputation of her husband who is a
former Senator and her own track record as former member of the House of
Representatives.
3. Advocacy – There are four issues that are close to the teachers’ hearts namely
Education, Environment, Good Governance, and Livelihood. Angara was
identified with education; Legarda and Hagedorn were remembered to be
advocates for the environment; Pimentel, Cayetano, Trillanes, and Escudero
projected themselves as corruption “busters”; and Villar and Aquino were
proponents of livelihood programs. Teachers view these four issues to benefit
the sector and the country. They best represent what teachers value.
4. Representative of “New Politics” – The inclusion of Hontiveros and the
relatively high rating of Casino in the teachers’ choices would show that there is
a growing sector within the teachers’ sector that advocates for “progressive
politics”. These two candidates belong to parties associated with non-‐traditional
parties in the Philippines. They represent the left of center politics associated
with calls for structural changes in the political economy of the country. Their
parties are critical of globalization, political dynasties, unbridled capitalism,
income disparity, and militarism. They advocate for genuine agrarian reform,
policies that will support re-‐distribution of wealth, and empowerment of the
poor and marginalized sectors.
While the above-‐mentioned factors could not be rated as to the degree of importance,
all of these influence the voters’ decision in choosing an election candidate. It is
noteworthy, however, that the primary determinants in choosing the senatorial
candidates among the respondents in this study are the candidates’ credibility, track
record, reputation of performance, knowledge and advocacy on specific social issues, as
well as some physical/social age factors such as age and educational background.
While the voters are likely to be influenced by impressions based on attractiveness,
popularity, and media images, among others, the above-‐mentioned characteristics have
significantly played a role in informing voters’ choices.
This goes to show that the respondents, or the teachers in particular, have gotten out of
the mold of the traditional election culture in the Philippines. If possible, they want to
junk the traditional politicians and their patronage politics. The respondents’/teachers’
cynicism about traditional Philippine politics could be due to the countless controversies
and seeming hopelessness besetting various political figures.
As such, during the recently concluded senatorial election, the respondents/teachers
have chosen younger but intelligent and promising, as well as issue -‐ and performance–
oriented candidates They have chosen alternative leaders, usually new and young
politicians, with new (progressive) ideas and who can infuse new ways of thinking and
doing things in the Senate.
Implications on Education
The most salient finding in this study is the difference between how teachers and the
general public voted. Three of the teachers’ choices did no win. What teachers value are
not necessarily shared by the majority of the voters. This makes for an interesting
analysis. Researches show that the school influences that political attitude of students.
How do we then account for the discrepancy in the results?
Based on 2008 education data, out of 100 Grade One pupils, only 66 finish Grade Six.
Only 58 of the 66 go on to enroll in first-‐year high school and only 43 finish high school.
Of the 43 who finished high school, only 23 enroll in college and only 14 of the 23
graduate from college. However, there is a steady decline in the drop out rate in
elementary and high school since 2010.
The high drop out rate implies that majority of voters did not have the benefit of gaining
from increasing level of political sophistication resulting from increasing level of
education. It is believed that educated people are more tolerant, more civically and
politically active, and more law abiding (Jammar etal, 2013). In the study of Sondheimer
& Green (2010), there is empirical basis supporting that education causes increased
political sophistication.
There are two competing points of view about the role of education in shaping citizens’
political knowledge and sophistication which in turn translate into voting decisions. One
is education as cause view (Converse 1972;Verba et al. 1995;Wolfinger & Rosenstone
1980).e.g., and see Campbell (2006) for a literature review).and the other as education
as not necessarily the cause but a proxy to other factors such as family socialization and
political orientation (e.g.,Berinsky & Lenz 2011; Burden 2009; Campbell 2009; Highton
2009; Kam & Palmer 2008; Sondheimer & Green 2010; Nie et al. 1996; Tenn 2005,
2007). In the study of Milligan et al. (2004), it was found that education has a positive
impact on voting in the United States (but not in the United Kingdom). While researches
yield competing results as regards the role of education in political sophistication of
citizens, it is interesting to note that there seems to be shared view that parents’
political views and the climate at home are among the factors greatly influencing
citizens’ political attitudes and knowledge. Teachers deal with parents as well. Programs
may be developed in school for parents’ civic education.
Two things are clear from the study. One, there is a need to reduce drop out rate so that
there will be more people who can benefit from civic education both through curricular
and co-‐curricular programs of schools. Two, schools should have civic education for
parents as well. It is only then that teachers can adequately perform their functions as
agents of political socialization. It goes without saying that teachers’ civic education
should be part of their professional training.
References:
Abinales, Patricio N., Amoroso, Donna J. 2005. State and Society in the Philippines . Anvil Publishing, Inc
Berinsky, A. J. & Lenz,G. S. 2011. ‘Education and Political Participation: Exploring the Causal Link’, Political Behavior, 33(3), 357–73. Burden, B. 2009. ‘The Dynamic Effects of Education on Voter Turnout’, Electoral Studies, 28, 540–9. Campbell, D. E. 2006. ‘What is Education’s Impact on Civic and Social Engagement’, in Desjardins, R. & Schuller, T., eds, Measuring the Effects of Education on Health and Civic Engagement. Paris: OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Converse, P. E. 1972. ‘Change in the American Electorate’, in Campbell, A. & Converse, P. E.,eds, The Human Meaning of Social Change. New York: Russell Sage. Gamalinda, Eric. 1992. Opinion, Polls, and Presidents.‖ 1992 & Beyond: Forces and Issues in Philippine Elections. Quezon City: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism and Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs Hayes, Danny. ―Has Television Personalized Voting Behavior‖. Political Behavior, Volume 31, June 2009 Highton, B. 2009. ‘Revisiting the Relationship between Educational Attainment and Political Sophistication’, Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1564–76. Institute of Electoral and Political Reform, 2003. Restudying the Filipino Voter Today.
Janmaat, J. G., Duru-‐Bellat, M., Green, A., & M�haut, P. (2013). Introduction. The Dynamics and Social Outcomes of Education Systems. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137025692.0006
Kam, C. D. & Palmer, C. L. 2008. ‘Reconsidering the Effects of Education on Political Participation’, Journal of Politics, 70(3), 612–31. Lau, R.R. & D.O. Sears. 1986b. Social cognition and political cognition. The past, the present, and the future. In R.R. Lau & D.O. Sears, eds., Political cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Milligan, K., Moretti, E. & Oreopoulos, P. 2004. ‘Does Education Improve Citizenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom’, Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 1667–95. Nie,N. H., Junn, J. & Stehlik-‐Barry, K. 1996. Education and Democratic Citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Persson, M. (2012). Does Type of Education Affect Political Participation? Results from a Panel Survey of Swedish Adolescents. Scandinavian Political Studies, 35(3), 198-‐221. doi:10.1111/j.1467-‐9477.2012.00286.x Popkin, S.L. 1994. The reasoning voter. Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns . 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Sniderman, P.M., R.A. Brody & P.E. Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and choice. Explo rations in political psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press Sondheimer, R. M. & Green, D. P. 2010. ‘Using Experiments to Estimate the Effects of Education on Voter Turnout’, American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 174–89. Tenn, S. 2007. ‘The Effect of Education on Voter Turnout’, Political Analysis, 15, 446–64. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L. & Brady, H. E. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Westen, Drew, 2010. The Political Brain. THE ROLE OF EMOTION IN DECIDING THE FATE OF THE NATION. Public Affairs, New York. Wolfinger, R. E. & Rosenstone, S. J. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
http://bulatlat.com/main/2009/05/30/as-‐cost-‐of-‐education-‐rises-‐dropout-‐rates-‐among-‐
filipinos-‐soar/#sthash.abZq368y.dpuf.