by
I first thought of this topic when I saw a post in Facebook. This post or should I say “infographic” lists down the credentials of some government officials before and now. The infographic compared the credentials of past presidents to elected officials today who are drop outs, celebrities and have little knowledge in politics. Based on the said infographic, one may tell that the quality of our decisions during elections has degraded. It has switched its basis from credentials to popularity. If one is popular, one now has the power to influence people. With this influence, one can leave an impression. With this, we can now further tell that decisions during elections have switched its basis from credentials to impression. In order to protect this impression to the public, it may be true or deceptively true, one needs the technique of impression management.
According to Erving Goffman, individuals are also actors or actresses that use acting techniques to communicate and act a certain role. Impression management is done when an individual tends to control his/her action to show and influence another individual. It is similar to self presentation in the public and public relations. Impression management could also lead to being untruthful to the public and to you. It can lead an individual to wear a mask in front of the public for the benefit of their own motives.
Impression management is very evident in Philippine politics. We might see a government official as honorable, reserved and saint-like in public but that official might just be deceptively honorable, preserved, saint-like, the leader in doing corruption, election manipulation and just tell us he/she is sorry in national television.
Now, I would like to focus on one avenue wherein impression management is clearly being practiced here in the Philippines. In a election campaign, the candidate shows and convinces the voters that they are worthy of their votes. A campaign may come in many forms. It may be a television advertisement, campaign jingles, posters or campaign rallies. The candidates would present themselves in a likeable way to gain positive impressions. They may say that they were swimming in a river full of garbage before or present themselves in many other ways in public, all of these may be true or not, but they say these to attract impression. The more they execute this kind of technique, the wider scope of voters a candidate could influence; and this influence could later become an impression. This idea makes Philippine elections not fair.
The problem to this situation is the economics behind these campaigns. The cost now of using these campaign strategies is now very expensive or extravagant. A television advertisement campaign by a certain candidate even reached 151 million pesos according to the Philippine Institute of Investigative Journalism (PCIJ). That amount was just for the candidate’s television advertisement; for sure the candidate is also engaged in other campaign strategies. Where do the candidates get their money? Will they “work” to get back what they have spent? How about those who are running for office yet can’t afford this extravagant cost for running?
Let us take a look at the unfortunates in this situation or should I say the candidates who have no means to buy an air time for a television advertisement and could only afford to guest at network-funded debates for television appearances and would be forced to just use other low-cost campaign strategies. How would they widen their influence if in fact they cannot even share their thoughts on issues on a bigger audience? How would they manage the impressions they have made to the few they have shared their ideas with if they cannot regularly reinforce it? In this aspect, election in the Philippines is now constructed to benefit only the rich, those who can afford. I am not against rich families or political clans running in elections, it is just that these people have the capability of wealth and for those who desire to expand this capability, often use negative impression management to present themselves and simply history tells me to think this way. The playing field is simply not in level, it is not fair. The relatively poorer candidates could not compete with these rich families and political clans in terms of the use of election strategies.
Several actions by independent groups are geared towards leveling the playing field. In the internet, these groups have posted the credentials and some background of all candidates. Recognizing the potentials of the cyberspace and using it to good use especially these times of elections, is one way of leveling the playing field. Volunteer groups aimed for spreading election education is another; using the innate kindness and helpfulness of Filipinos matched with the desire for positive change in the country are two of our best ammos in annihilating the problem.
Valuing impression more than credentials would simply mean valuing a coin-toss decision making over data and statistics, an irrational risk over a rational risk. One politician may win through impression and execute outstandingly but it may come one in a million. I am not saying impression is useless, these two should be together but the other should be valued more than this. It all boils down to the question; would we risk the future of our beloved nation to a smile that could hide many motives or desires over a brain molded by sacrifice and hard work? Having a brain like that is not an assurance; again it is still a risk, a rationally-sound risk. One should just hope and pray that it will be utilized for good use.
Knowing this I hope we would do an extra mile for this country. Let us make the decision-making much easier for our fellow Filipinos. How? With the power of being informed, use this by letting them know that this problem of inequality exists which would hopefully lead them to choose the rationally-sound risk.
Kirtham Novreil Dumpa is a first year undergraduate student of Business Economics from UP Diliman.
