Corruption, poverty, criminality, and the next prez

NEVER IN recent memory has there been as much confusion and indecision among the electorate on who to vote for president than now. In social gatherings and in social media, there is an increasing number of voters who answer “none of the above” (or “Nota”) when asked about their choice from the list of presidential candidates.

But among the voters who have made up their minds, their choice is based on their candidate’s perceived strength on issues that they consider most important. Among voters who respond with “Nota,” their lack of choice results from what they perceive as the weakness of all the candidates vis-à-vis these burning issues.

It is thus fitting to discuss the issues that motivate voters to choose one candidate over the others. There are three major issues in this regard.

First, poverty is a major issue that influences voter preference. The latest government figures (2014) show that the poverty incidence in the country’s total population of 100 million is 26 percent, much higher if private research figures are considered. Thus, poverty is an issue that greatly resonates with at least 26 million Filipinos. Of all the candidates, Jejomar Binay appears to be more effectively connecting with the poor, as evidenced by his comparatively larger share of voters from the D (30 percent) and E (42 percent) economic classes in the latest Pulse Asia Survey.

Criminality is the second major issue among voters. A big chunk of it is the huge drug problem wreaking havoc on peace and order. Ask province-based friends and family and they will confide their enormous fears on the growing drug menace in their communities. The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) estimates that 92 percent of barangays in Metro Manila are drug-affected, while 21 percent or 8,629 of the 42,065 barangays nationwide have drug-related cases. But certain members of the House of Representatives have expressed the belief that national figures are far higher than the conservative PDEA figures.

The mounting drug problem is reflected in the sizeable support for Rodrigo Duterte, who promises swift action to eradicate the drug menace in the country. His strong words in this regard resonate with voters who live in fear of the many crimes that the drug problem brings.

Corruption is the third major issue that shapes the choice of many voters. Personal enrichment while in office is a big turnoff for many voters. Mar Roxas, Grace Poe and Duterte are drawing huge voter support because of their stand against corruption.

However, public discussion on corruption is narrowly focused on finding evidence of personal enrichment alone. Corruption through enrichment of a candidate’s allies and supporters who corner business and financial concessions escapes the limelight of open discussion. Often, the unfair and irregular grant of tax exemptions, franchises, and government contracts to favored supporters and allies is a far worse form of corruption because of the far greater economic prejudice caused to the people and the country for many, many years. The financial prejudice caused to the people is measured, not only in millions, but sometimes in billions of pesos for the indefinite number of years that these favored supporters reap rewards from irregularly-granted business concessions.

The media research firm Nielsen Philippines released figures last week showing that three presidential candidates spent a total of P2.164 billion in ads for television, radio and print media from Jan. 1 to Nov. 30, 2015. Four candidates spent more than three times their personal net worth as declared in their latest statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

Roxas spent P774 million even if his net worth stands at P202 million. Binay spent P696 million even if his net worth stands at P60 million. And Poe spent P695 million even if her net worth stands at P149 million. As for Duterte, only his spending for TV ads was reported at P115 million, even while his net worth stands at P23 million.

Between now and the May elections, these candidates will even more dramatically increase their spending, thereby enlarging the financial gamble of their financial backers.

Who are these financiers who are gambling hundreds of millions of pesos to fund these presidential candidates? It is a given that the next president will pay back and reward his or her financiers with control over juicy positions and business concessions.

Commenting on this splurge of election spending, independent senatorial candidate Walden Bello said: “[T]his is amazing, for a poor country. This is profoundly undemocratic and is surely going to result in massive corruption later so that the candidates can regain their investments while in office.”

It will be interesting for investigative journalists to keep tabs on the identities of the businesspersons generously supporting each candidate, and then monitor the growth of the business interests of those businesspersons who gave substantial support to the new president.

There are many other candidate-specific issues such as competence, qualifications, and dictatorial character, that influence voter preference. But corruption, criminality, and poverty are the core issues that will exert great influence on the election of the next president who will lead the Philippines to prosperity, stagnation, or perdition starting at noon of June 30.

* * *

Comments to fleamarketofideas@gmail.com