MANILA, Philippines—In a recent talk on “Surveying the Social Volcano” for CEOs and other opinion leaders at the Inquirer, I presented cross-country data showing Filipinos with: (a) a high score in seeing widespread corruption in the public service; (b) a very low score in seeing elections as honest; (c) a very low score in having personally joined a public demonstration; and (d) a very high score in putting importance to the right of civil disobedience.
These four bits of data—from the 2004 Survey on Citizenship of the International Social Survey Program (www.issp.org), in 38 countries—are all pertinent to public protest. The first two look into potential reasons for it, the third counts experience in protesting on the street, and the fourth is the public’s evaluation of the importance of the right to protest.
Justification for public protest. In the first place, a 55-percent majority of Filipinos, far above the global average of only 36 percent, said that corruption involved either “a lot of people” or “almost everyone” in the public service (see my column of March 29, “How widespread is corruption?”).
Secondly, only a 41-percent minority of Filipinos, far below the global average of 73 percent, considered their elections as either “somewhat honest” or “very honest.” Thus the specific issues of widespread public corruption and dishonest elections are much greater justifications for public protests in the Philippines than in other countries.
Experience in joining a protest rally. As of 2004, only 9 percent of Filipinos (adults, that is) had ever joined a protest rally in their lives. That is much less than the global average of 24 percent. Incidentally, 10 percent of Filipinos said they might do it, whereas 80 percent said they never would.
Nine percent is small, relative to other nationalities, yet it is sufficient for People Power, as was proven in 1986 and 2001. Surveys by the poll group Social Weather Stations (SWS) in the last week of January 2001 and the first week of February 2001 found that at least 11 percent of Metro Manila adults had joined the protest rallies that led to the ouster of President Joseph “Erap” Estrada. That “small” proportion amounted to at least 727,000 adults; protesters at EDSA People Power II exceeded one million, as it included Metro Manila youths and persons from nearby areas too.
The importance of certain democratic rights. The ISSP survey asked respondents to grade the importance of six democratic rights, on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is “not at all important” and 7 is “very important.” Here are the six democratic rights that were rated, and the percentages grading them as 6 or 7, for Filipinos and for the global average of 38 nationalities:
1. That all citizens have an adequate standard of living (“na ang lahat ng mga mamamayan ay may sapat na antas ng pamumuhay:): Filipinos 73, global 85;
2. That government authorities respect and protect the rights of minorities (“na nirerespeto at ipinagtatanggol ng pamahalaan ang mga karapatan ng minorya”): Filipinos 75, global 77;
3. That government authorities treat everybody equally regardless of their position in society (“na tina-trato ng pamahalaan ang lahat nang pantay-pantay kahit ano pa ang posisyon nito sa lipunan”): Filipinos 73, global 88;
4. That politicians take into account the views of citizens before making decisions (“na ang mga pulitiko ay nakikinig sa mga pananaw ng mamamayan bago gumawa ng mga desisyon”): Filipinos 71, global 86;
5. That people be given more opportunities to participate in public decision-making (“na ang mga mamamayan ay mabigyan ng mas maraming pagkakataon na lumahok sa pampublikong pagdedesisyon”): Filipinos 72, global 75; and
6. That citizens may engage in acts of civil disobedience when they oppose government actions (“na ang mga mamamayan ay maaaring sumuway sa utos ng gobyerno kung mayroon tinututulan dito”): Filipinos 64, global 44.
The outstanding finding from this survey of democratic rights is that, whereas we Filipinos, compared to other peoples of the world, care slightly less about a minimum living standard, the rights of minorities, the right to equal treatment, the right to be heard, and the right to participate, at the same time we care much, much more than others do about the right of civil disobedience.
Only four countries have higher scores than the Philippines on the importance of civil disobedience, all from the Eastern bloc: Bulgaria (79), Poland (72), Slovakia (71) and Latvia (65). Russia’s score is 57. Germany’s high score of 52 may be due, said a German visitor, to the national memory of having acquiesced to immoral government policies in Nazi times.
Will the social volcano erupt? In my Inquirer seminar, I said that the eruptions of 1986 and 2001 proved that “the social volcano” can be awakened. During “Juetenggate,” President Erap was (slightly) popular, while then-Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was unpopular for having deserted him. Public opinion on Erap was still divided during the impeachment trial. EDSA People Power II was triggered by the unscripted refusal to open the “second envelope,” which nine out of 10 Metro Manilans saw on live TV. The “Hello Garci” crisis is worse. For three years, President Arroyo has been very unpopular, while her VP has been (relatively) popular.
The ISSP citizenship-survey data suggest that a social explosion would be driven less by the Filipinos’ inclination towards rallies than by their insistence on the right of civil disobedience. The timing of such an explosion, like that of any volcano, is unpredictable.
* * *
Contact SWS: www.sws.org.ph or mahar.mangahas@sws.org.ph.
