Bridge the class divide TO make elections work

Much has been said about young voters being a “woke” sector that could spell the difference in the elections. Mock polls conducted in many schools showed the popularity of certain qualified senatorial candidates among the youth, yet many members, or a portion, of this sector didn’t even register their votes during the actual election day. Had they all exercised their right of suffrage, could the results of the elections have been different?

Voter turnout in the Philippines from the last three national polls (2010-2016) was 78 percent, relatively high compared to 40-60 percent in the United States. Also, in 2013, the country ranked fifth highest in terms of voter turnout among Asian nations. For this year’s elections, reports said young voters (comprising 18 to 44 years old) represent 63 percent of the electorate. With these statistics, setting aside the question of how big (or how little) of a percentage constitutes those young voters who didn’t vote, it can be argued that perhaps, yes, the youth vote could have made a difference.

However, some pundits have opined that there is no such thing as a “solid youth vote” (unlike the relatively monolithic Iglesia ni Cristo bloc), since the youth sector is stratified by political persuasion, educational background and socioeconomic class. Generational affiliation or classification, therefore, is not the ultimate game-changer.

Perhaps the greater deciding factor is “socioeconomic” or “income” class. There has not been a definitive formula for classifying the Philippine population according to socioeconomic and income criteria, and different schools of thought come up with varying classes and percentages. But according to a typology developed by Albert, et al. in their paper “Profile and Determinants of the Middle-Income Class in the Philippines” (December 2018), 58.4 percent of the country’s population, in 2015, belonged to the poor and low-income classes, whose monthly family income (for a family of five) was below P19,040 (at 2017 prices); 40.2 percent were part of the middle-income class, (between P19,040 and P114,240); and 1.65 percent were considered upper-income and rich (P114,240 or more). A caveat has to be made, however, that this classification does not include factors such as educational attainment, housing characteristics, asset ownership, among others.

From the income classification summarized above, it can be said that the “lower class,” which constitutes 58.4 percent of the population, represents the crucial “block” or “class” vote in any elections. The results of the May 13 polls more or less reflect the will and preference of this great social class, which constitutes the less educated and those who do not contribute much to the country’s revenues, at least by way of income tax.

Those belonging to the upper classes may scoff at this social class, but before we dismiss them as “unenlightened,” let’s be reminded that the lower classes are also the impoverished, those who suffer unemployment and underemployment, and those who do not have enough resources.

Then perhaps we may have an idea of the rationale behind their electoral choices, although we may not fully understand them. Before we blame them for the uncertain future awaiting this nation, perhaps we should know where they’re coming from and help enlighten them. The herculean task of educating them should go beyond social media engagement; they may not have access to technology, or if they do, they probably are exposed to the wrong content and platforms.

There is still hope. Electoral reforms are possible, but only if we can mobilize our forces to bridge the class divide and make elections work for the betterment of this nation.

RANDY RENIER I. ESPINOZA, MBA, [email protected]