Political Participation: Low-income level
Ever since the colonial period in the Philippines, elections has been an ongoing practice
by the Filipinos until present times. It has something to do with voting an individual’s preferred
leader or politician who will govern the country for a number of consecutive years. Basically,
election is defined as a part of political participation a process whereby registered Filipino voters
elect their barangay officials and municipal officials locally, and their president, vice president
and senators nationally. Unambiguous dissimilarities between national and local elections can be
observed such as the number voters involved or the relevance of the position candidates run for
(Banalaoi and Carlos, 1997). However, in every electoral process whether local or national, there
are always two prominent actors: the candidates and the voters. It is important to note, however,
that other actors such as political parties, media, etc. play an important role in the process of
elections. Candidates and voters alike are important players in the electoral process. Voters
comprise of a diverse group of individuals coming from different places or having different
lifestyles. Individuals can be categorized based on their income levels; those with higher income,
those with lower income and those in between.
According to Solt (2008), individuals in a democratic nation coming from opposite
income level stratifications differ in their rate of electoral participation. That is, individuals with
higher income are more likely to engage in political matters as opposed to individuals with lower
income. On the contrary, Kasara and Suryanarayan (2014) proposes the opposite notion. That is,
individuals with lower income are more likely to engage in political matters as opposed to
individuals with higher income in order to address their pressing needs. These two studies
establish that individuals belonging to different income levels differ in political perspectives and
involvements. Studies conducted by Glass (1985), Miller, Wattenberg and Malanchuk (1986)
further the knowledge on social inequalities whereby both studies justify that there is a difference
between the candidate preference of individuals belonging to a higher income level from those
belonging to a lower income level.
Given that voters from varying levels in society differ in candidate preference, we can
note that voters take into consideration the personal traits of a candidate when making their
decision. For instance, in the study made by Hollan and Prysby (2014), voters are said to look for
certain characteristics from presidential candidates such as leadership, integrity, empathy and
competence. Similarly, Miller, Wattenberg and Malanchuk (1986) presented three presidential
candidates characteristics: competence, integrity and reliability that voters look into when
making their choice.
Based on the general profile of those who belong to the low-income level, their level and
manner political participation are mostly based on their immediate, material needs as well as the
extent to which they can benefit from participating. This part of the literature review emphasizes
more on how those who belong to the low-income bracket participate in political activities such
as elections, and the like. First, a general profile of those in this category will be given to better
understand how they think and behave as well as their underlying problems and concerns. Then,
the reasons behind their participation will be enumerated and expounded.
One factor of which would be the low income earner’s educational attainment. According
to Brown, people classified under a low socioeconomic status, on the other hand, are said to have
graduated in either elementary or high school, and have a low level of income. Those of a lower
socioeconomic status attribute their low levels of political participation (i.e. voting) and political
efficacy to their low educational attainment and income level (2009). There were cases in the
United states of America wherein the author did a study on who low income earners vote and the
reason why they vote for their preferred candidates and their specific political party. It turns out
the results provided a conclusion in which it these low income earners vote for candidates in a
specific party due to the benefits the party has provided for them. It was stated that the elections
prove that their votes lean towards Democrats who essentially promote social welfare, universal
health care, and other policies that would benefit poorer citizens (2009). However, despite this,
Lawless and Fox stated that there are cases wherein material resources and demographic
attributes are usually associated with a propensity to participate politically drove political
activism among poor respondents (2001). The authors found out that there is a need for severe
economic hardship and influential attributes with government agents whom poor citizens
routinely face served as experiences that bolstered their willingness to participate in the political
system (2001).
Aside from this, there is also a distinction between poor voters and voters in poor places.
Zucco (2010) conducted a study that looks into the voting patterns of poor voters in contrast to
voters in poor places such as Brazil. As observed by the research, the incumbent party candidate
that promoted eradication of poverty and good economic performance were determined to have
higher number votes in poorer places than in richer places. However, as the study further
examines, this case is repudiated since when poor voters in richer places were not able to be
persuaded by the incumbent candidate and had lower voter returns in these regions. An example
of which would be the Bolsa Familia. The Bolsa Familia is a conditional cash transfer program
formulated and implemented by the government to influence changing electoral patterns in the
country. The research found out that the conditional cash transfer program had superior effect
more in abroad than domestic regions. The reason for this is because the government and other
institutions implementing the program were not able to regulate it well due to the fact that there
were more low income earners in developing countries which made it hard for the government to
control.
There are several studies that explain the correlation between low-income level and
political participation. This part of the related literature will include studies that concentrate on
the political participation of the poor. This is to provide empirical evidence to prove the
theoretical explanations behind the political participation of the low-income earners. The
findings of the said studies as well as the analysis that can be drawn from them will be stated
below.
There are cases wherein poor people vote for their preferred candidates due to the
credentials a candidate has. However, their basis of preferential candidate is claimed to be a vote
by “uneducated” and easily manipulated individuals. According to the Institute of Philippine
Culture of the Ateneo de Manila University, low income earners who vote for their preferred
candidates through credentials are basically called uneducated and easily manipulated to a
certain extent that they vote for the candidate as soon as they will either be incentivized or easily
believe the candidate without knowing the pros and the cons of voting for this particular
candidate (2014). Moreover, they are easily manipulated by the promises and platforms made by
the candidates even if they did not explain the process on how they will be able to execute and
implement the said platforms. This is too common in the Philippine context. According to the
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (2004), the lower classes viewed Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) as reliable, they thought otherwise towards the National Citizens
Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL). In addition, the lower classes tended to vote for the
winning political candidate. This is where the social choice theory takes place. According to
Kenneth Arrow’s Social Choice theory, this occurs wherein all individual choices are aggregated
which deals with voting rules that translates individual preference orderings into group decision.
The theory also states that not a single person knows the preferences of each individual but it can
be used to come up with a decision. There cases wherein people will tend to vote for people who
are the “lesser evil” of all candidates or there those individuals who will vote for a candidate who
is winning since they are preferred by the majority. The poor not only have an idea about their
ideal leader, but also see voting as their only legitimate way of changing the political situation.
The credentials as well as the moral character of the leader are ranked as the top determinants for
the poor’s vote. While they linked qualities such as “God-fearing” and “helpful” to their ideal
leader, corruption recorded expressively high as in contrast to the other qualities of a bad leader.
However, the irony that exists in the poor’s voting behavior is their willingness to accept money
from vote buying (Chua & Coronel, 2014). An example of vote buying would be to accept
money and perceived those funds and influence as a determinant for a candidate’s victory
(Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, 2004). Additionally, the Institute of Political and
Economic Reform found that income level affected the reasons why people accepted electoral
fraud. Those with monthly incomes of P5,000 or less were more likely to accept fraud based on
“powerlessness” and less likely to feel that “no authority can stop fraud.” Those with monthly
incomes of P5,000 to P10,000 were more likely to believe that “no authority can stop fraud” or
respond that they “do not care why” fraud is committed (Institute of Political and Economic
Reform, 2004, p.23). Those with monthly incomes of P10,000 or more were more likely to see
fraud as “a fact of life” embedded in the system. To understand this, it is important to look into
Philippine elections. Patron-client relations, electoral fraud, vote buying, and other supposedly
illegal practices plague the election scene. The poor are more vulnerable to these due to their
willingness to vote in exchange for material rewards (Lero, 2008, p.10).
In connection to this, there were also cases wherein they vote for a particular candidate
given their preferred type of government or their process of governing a particular country. One
circumstance would be the case of “Chavismo”. This case basically talks about who supports the
reign of Hugo Chavez, the authoritarian from Venezuela. Lupu (2010) found out that the lower
class or low income earners tend to support the authoritarian more than the rich ones. Another
case would be the Taiwanese government. Lin (2007) stated that Taiwanese tend to vote if there
is a heightened interest of policy makers on poverty alleviation and electorate’s geographical,
educational and poverty level.
In addition to this, inequality and the notion of trust are also another factors that explains
why the low income earners vote more than high income earners. Trust is the most important
variable to determine the level of participation (Brown & Uslaner, 2002). There are different
levels of trust that should be considered in defining the notion of trust. One level would be the
trust in personal life and another would be the trust in society. The trust in society includes the
trust in the government to govern the state without any other factors that would break the trust of
the citizens. In connection to this, political participation takes place wherein a citizen places their
trust upon a candidate by simply voting for that candidate. Another variable would be the notion
of inequality. Citizens tend to participate more if they experience inequalities such as income,
distribution of rights, resources, and the like. This occurs wherein an individual or a group lacks
the resources he/she or they need to survive the environment. With this situation, citizens will
tend to participate more by voting for the right candidate for the next election who will be able to
solve this issue or crisis. Given these variables, Brown and Uslaner (2002) experimented whether
the former predominantly affects political participation or the latter. As stated in the result, the
common notion that inequality affects participation is not generally seen but rather that trust
affect participation. The findings show that inequality is an important indicator to determine the
level of trust, and that trust has bigger effect on communal participation rather than political
participation (Brown & Uslaner, 2002). Here, trust, as the most dominant variable than
inequality, motivates low income earners to vote more in the elections as they entrust their
salaries, no matter how small they have, to their preferred elected leaders as they will use these
taxes to further develop one’s state and the well-being of each and every individual in the
society.
In the context of Philippine elections, it may be hypothesized that communities with
lower incomes tend to more likely vote because they are more inclined to political machinists
and electoral fraud techniques more specifically vote buying as the common mechanisms in the
Philippines. Moreover, unlike those with higher incomes who may engage the political process
through personal connections or civic involvement, voting remains the major way low-income
people can be involved in the political process. Aside from the Philippine context wherein the
low income earners are more likely to vote than high incomes, international voting literature has
shown that those with higher incomes are more likely to vote.
