Is the survey on the performance of government institutions meaningful?

The Third Quarter 2017 survey done by Social Weather Stations (SWS) a month ago (Sept. 23-27) found 62% satisfied and 17% dissatisfied with the performance of the Senate, 52% satisfied and 18% dissatisfied with the House of Representatives, 50% satisfied and 19% dissatisfied with the Supreme Court of the Philippines, and 49% satisfied and 17% dissatisfied with the Cabinet. The resulting net satisfaction ratings (% satisfied minus % dissatisfied) were a “good” +46 for the Senate, a “good” +34 for the House of Representatives, a “good” +31 for the Supreme Court, and a “good” +32 for the Cabinet.

SWS uses the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) population figures broken down by socioeconomic classes. According to PSA, the Philippine population breaks down into 1% AB, 9% C, 60% D, and 30% E. If the sample of 1,500 respondents is representative of the voting population, as it should be, then only 15 respondents came from the socioeconomic class AB and 135 came from Class C. The bulk of the interviews therefore must have been conducted among the lower socioeconomic classes – 900 from among those belonging to the socioeconomic class D and 450 to the class E.

SWS calls the A socioeconomic class as the Upper Class and the B class as the Lower Upper Class. It describes the AB socioeconomic class as the most affluent group whose homes and lifestyles exude an obvious disregard for or lack of economizing. SWS refers to the C class as the middle class whose homes and lifestyles reflect comfortable living and the capacity to indulge in some luxuries, the D class as the Lower Class who have some comfort and means but basically thrive on a hand-to-mouth existence, and the E class as the Extremely Lower Class who face great difficulties in meeting their survival needs.

That makes me wonder what the 1,350 respondents from the lower classes based their opinion of the performances of the different government institutions.

Maybe it can be safely said that based on their circumstances in life, the highest educational attainment of the 1,350 respondents from the Lower Classes would be 2^nd year high school. Their access to information pertaining to governance cannot be through the print media as they would rather buy food than buy a newspaper. Their main source of information regarding the national and local government must be the broadcast media as they need not own a radio or television set. There is always someone in their neighborhood who without being asked lets everybody within 20 meters listen to what is being aired on his set.

The people from the lower socioeconomic class may have as basis for their opinion on the performance of the Senate as a whole the individual performance of their idols Manny Pacquiao and Tito Sotto as these two never fail to get their more than ample share of airtime during nationally televised hearings of the Senate. It matters not to the lower class people if what the two senators said was hollow, irrelevant, or plain nonsense, which is the case most of the time.

After all, those people elected the two to the Senate not because of their erudition or substantive experience in legislation. Of Sotto, the Harvard Law graduate and colossus of the Senate Juan Ponce Enrile once said he was not seeking reelection to the Senate because he did not relish the thought of debating with the likes of Sotto. About Pacquiao, he does not know what Congress is for. When asked about his atrocious attendance record in the House of Representatives, he said: “I don’t sit around making laws like others.”

The lower class people voted for Sotto because they enjoyed the toilet jokes he told in his TV program Iskul Bukul and Pacquiao because he is world champion in eight boxing divisions. They had sent previously to the Senate Robert Jaworski simply because he was a basketball superstar, Ramon Revilla, son Bong, and Lito Lapid because they were movie action stars.

As for the House of Representatives, there is no show business personality or sports hero whose performance in Lower House deliberations could form the basis of the DE people’s assessment of its performance as a whole. True, movie actress Lucy Torres is a member of the Lower House and therefore a person of interest to the DE people, but Lower House proceedings are rarely televised for people to see the congressmen “perform,” least of all Congresswoman Torres.

The only basis the respondents may have in assessing the performance of the Lower House as a whole is the performance of their respective representatives. As the participation in Congressional deliberations of each congressman is rarely exposed to the general public, respondents in a survey on the performance of the House of Representatives would hardly have any basis for their assessment. What may have been the basis of the respondents’ opinion was the benefaction provided by their respective representative.

Now what do the 1,350 respondents from the DE socioeconomic class, or for that matter the 135 respondents from the C class, know about the work of the Supreme Court Justices as for them to have a basis for their judgment of the performance of the Court as a whole. Yet, 50% of the respondents expressed satisfaction with the performance of the Court.

The same may be asked with regard to the Cabinet. The DE people may know who the secretaries of Social Welfare and Development and of Labor are and what they do, but it is unlikely they could name three more secretaries. There are 20 department secretaries. Yet, 49% of those interviewed said they were satisfied with the performance of the Cabinet.

This situation comes about because of the way the survey is conducted. The respondents are asked this question:

Based on their overall performance, how do you feel about the performance of the following government institutions? Are you Very satisfied, Somewhat satisfied, Undecided if satisfied or not, Somewhat dissatisfied, Very dissatisfied or You have never heard or read anything about (institution)? You may indicate your answer by placing each card on the appropriate answer on this rating board.

It is most probable that a respondent from the Lower Class is not in a position to render judgment on the performance of the Supreme Court or the Cabinet as he does not know what the function of those institutions is. But in order not to appear an ignoramus to the interviewer and feeling proud for being interviewed about matters of national interest, he picks impulsively one of the possible answers presented to him.

It would be interesting to know what the respondents’ answers would be if they were asked to rate the performance of the Wimbledon Centre Court or The Farmers’ Cabinet.

Perhaps, the survey would be indicative of the citizens’ true sentiments if they are asked open-ended questions like, “How would you rate the performance of (the institution)?” If most of them say, “I don’t know,” that would be indicative of the level of politicization of the voting population. I tend to think that is the case.

Oscar P. Lagman, Jr. is a member of Manindigan! a cause-oriented group of businessmen, professionals, and academics.

oplagman@yahoo.com