How we will vote
May 6, 2016 at 15:09
How we will vote
(The Philippine Star) | Updated May 2, 2016 – 12:00am
I was having merienda with some friends last week discussing our political situation when one of them exclaimed the country is going to the dogs. Ever the cynical journalist, I responded that of course we are going to the dogs and the election is just meant for us to choose our preferred breed.
By this time, many of us know exactly who we will vote for. There are however, some of us who are still troubled by the choices set before us.
Those who are very sure of their choice can no longer be convinced to vote for anyone else. They are, already emotionally invested in their choice and any attempt to appeal to their “rational” side or even scare them of their vote’s consequences will no longer work.
What is “rational” is a personal thing. This whole emotion versus reason in people’s decision making process had always been a hot topic among economists and other social scientists. As someone who once made his living by claiming the ability to craft people’s choices, I always knew that without “an emotional buy-in” a product, service or person is destined to fail. In my advertising days, we call this essential element, “kurot sa puso”.
You must have heard about Homo Economicus or the theoretical rational man. A human is supposed to make decisions on the basis of self interest. Economists who follow the rational choice theory accept the assumption that people make decisions as a Homo Economicus.
Homo Economicus as an assumption has seen better days. Recent Nobel Prize winners in economics got their citation because of work in a field known as behavioral economics. Briefly, behavioral economics is “a method of economic analysis that applies psychological insights into human behavior to explain economic decision-making.”
Investopedia explains that “behavioral economics explores why people sometimes make irrational decisions, and why and how their behavior does not follow the predictions of economic models.” This is also how we make decisions every day, yes, including the choice we will make on May 9.
Let us take the Duterte groundswell that may well bring him to Malacanang. It is very clear to me that if we didn’t have Duterte, we would have to invent him. P-Noy may have been the most honest president we have had since his mother, but like her, he failed to address some of the most basic needs of our people.
True, our macroeconomic numbers have not been better, but all that had very little impact on the lives of our people. The survey numbers showed even those classified among the ABC social classes are strong supporters of Duterte because they too felt shortchanged by the last six years.
I recall someone saying that 70 percent of our economic gains over the last six years went to four percent of our population. I am not sure how accurate those numbers are, but it feels like that. It did not help P-Noy was rather inept in rolling out infrastructure that could have helped alleviate some sufferings among the working classes.
A foreign journalist observed “the disconnect between Aquino’s rosy rhetoric and realities on the ground is feeding democratic fatigue at the worst possible moment. Good governance hasn’t smashed the oligarched nature of the economy any more than rapid growth has eradicated poverty. Filipinos have every reason to be disenchanted with the ruling elite telling them life is super.”
Add to all that is a rather insensitive president who had been unable to feel what common people feel. He considered anyone who complains about his leadership as enemies for whom he has reserved some of the most hurtful words of scorn and sarcasm. Buhay ka pa naman, hindi ba?
Duterte, as someone observed, is P-Noy’s lasting legacy. People are just so angry they find this crass and dirty-mouthed mayor from the south as just the man who can bring them relief.
Mar Roxas also made a big messaging mistake by emphasizing continuity (being rational) when what people want is change (being emotional). That’s not surprising in this administration because the president and his officials just talk to each other instead of casting a big net to gather diverse opinions and reports.
During the last presidential debate in Dagupan, Mar Roxas, who had been trailing badly in the polls, made a good and rational presentation. Some of my technocrat friends who had been unsure about voting for him were convinced he is their man. I was not surprised.
If I didn’t know any better, I would be won over by Mar’s presentation too. His style is what those of us who went to graduate school and worked in the higher levels of management are hardwired to look up to. Mar was the McKinsey consultant trying to convince us, and it works all the time with the logic and the numbers even if divorced from reality.
The masses that are all out for Duterte are, on the other hand, not inclined to listen to concepts or big pictures from well dressed people who smell good. They have heard all that before and have been disappointed. They know better this time.
They are mad as hell for a life that makes them wake up before dawn to fall in line for hours for a train, only to be told the trains are not running or will be delayed. Out in Mindanao, far from the consciousness of Imperial Manila, they are dying of hunger and they got shot at instead.
The Makati businessmen were disappointed Duterte did not deliver a coherent speech that gave them an idea of his possible approach to economic policies. He doesn’t care. They are not the audience he is banking on to bring him to the Palace.
Duterte’s audience is only ready to listen to memorable sound bites that offer them relief. Duterte has won their hearts, and their hearts, have chosen him, for better or for worse.
The acoustical war this week will not likely lead to a change of heart if the choices remain as they are. If the elite want to prove it remains powerful enough to influence elections, they will have to take drastic steps or suffer Duterte for the next six years.
Cheating should not be an option because with emotions at a very high level, it could lead to a bloody protest. The elite power brokers may have to convince the other candidates to join forces for a last stand. Divided, it will be Duterte for the next six years.
I have heard stories about planeloads of cash being feverishly rushed all over the country. The price per voter is said to have gone up to P5000. But given the emotional investment of his supporters on his candidacy, people may take the money and vote for Duterte anyway.
Man versus machine? Some Binay and Roxas followers are saying their machinery will prevail in the end. I am not too sure machinery beats the emotional ties that bind the Duterte followers. But we will see.
This is one election that could be a turning point… which I hope will be for the good of our beloved country. We will all vote with our hearts, with our emotions. We always do because somehow the heart knows best.
Source: www.philstar.com/business
