“What’s the latest?” Page 1 of 3 Column for Philippine Daily Inquirer PDI 09-02, 1-09-08 [for publication on 1-10-2008] “What’s the latest?” Mahar Mangahas Right after greeting me Happy New Year, the most common next question of friends and acquaintances is “What’s the latest?” referring, most of all, to prospects for the next national election in 2010, according to the SWS surveys. I tell them that the survey leaders are a cluster of three, namely Noli de Castro, Manny Villar, and Loren Legarda, and then refer them to the SWS website, since I can’t remember so many numbers, all the more as another year passes by. Anyway, for the nth time, last November 7th SWS reported the finding of its September 2008 survey that the top answers to the question on persons who would be good (magaling) successors of Pres. Arroyo as President, with up to three names accepted, were – with percentages in parentheses -- de Castro (29), Villar (28), Legarda (26), Panfilo Lacson (17), Francis Escudero (16), Joseph Estrada (13), and Mar Roxas (13). All others, including Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Bayani Fernando, Antonio Trillanes et al., got one percent or less. In short, the aspirants cluster into three groups: the top three, then a group of four at least 9 points away, and then everyone else. To be fair to all possible aspirants, no list of names was provided to prompt the respondents. As a result, we discover that some Filipinos favor the return of GMA or Erap in 2010, and some favor Trillanes, though he would not yet be 40 years old by then. Either they are unaware that their choices are legally disqualified, or else they would welcome constitutional changes that would qualify them. SWS is neither for or against charter change. For as long as there is no change, we assume regularity in the letter of the Constitution and in its operation. From time to time, depending on the intensity of public debate, M. Mangahas, Social Climate, PDI 09-02 Jan 10 ”What’s the latest?” “What’s the latest?” Page 2 of 3 we have included the issue of charter change in our research on public opinion, focusing on the substance of proposed changes – which ultimately need to win approval in a referendum -- instead of on the mode of change – which depends on Congress as a whole, and not on popular consent. SWS has used the open-ended question on good successors to GMA in all its quarterly surveys since September 2007, and will continue to do so in the coming quarters. Next Tuesday, together with its annual survey review done in partnership with the Asian Institute of Management, SWS will announce the new results as of December 2008. The process of open opinion polling is intended to enhance public participation in democratic discourse. Each of us, individually, only knows our own opinion and the opinions of those close to us. We do not know the opinions of those too far away for us to listen to directly. It takes scientific surveying, openly reported, to enable us to understand, reliably, the collective will. Otherwise we are really only guessing, though, to be sure, some (and I don’t count myself as one) are better guessers than others. In using survey reports, there are two basic premises that one accepts, consciously or unconsciously. The first premise is that the collective will of the people matter. This is absolutely fundamental in a democratic society. The principle is: one person, one vote. Regardless of personal background, including education, each person’s opinion has equal importance. Opinion polling flourishes only in democratic societies. There is no need for them in authoritarian systems, where only the wishes of the dictator matter. The second premise is that the people surveyed tell the truth. As a matter of fact, Filipinos – like other nationalities – generally do. But one should remember that this depends on the state of freedom of speech. People should feel free to speak, not just to those they know closely, but even to a stranger, like an interviewer, who drops by to ask questions. An interviewer, as one in the democratic society, should be free to ask questions. (In China, incidentally, social survey questionnaires, including those done for market research, must pass government inspection.) A respondent should be free to give any substantive answer, as well as to refuse to answer. Obviously, promising some reward, or threatening some punishment, for giving particular answers will not produce truthful M. Mangahas, Social Climate, PDI 09-02 Jan 10 ”What’s the latest?” “What’s the latest?” Page 3 of 3 responses. The anonymity of respondents should be guaranteed. Every response should be faithfully recorded. The responses should be correctly assembled and tabulated. And survey institutions should be free to report their findings. None of these elements of free speech should be taken for granted. We have had to fight for them, all the way to the Supreme Court. * * * The 2009 SWS Survey Review will be held on January 13th, from 2 to 5 pm, at JV Rooms 2-4, AIM Conference Center Manila, Makati City. Among its topics will be measures of economic and social well-being, including hunger, poverty, and victimization by crime, and public opinion on governance and on issues such as the Senate probe on the ZTE-NBN deal, proposals to extend the term limits of government officials, and proposals to involve the government deeply in education in family planning and in promotion of reproductive health. It will include the SWS 2008 Survey of Enterprises, which delved into corruption in the public and private sectors. The event is open to the public free of charge. Limited seats are available for registrants on a first-come, first-served basis. To confirm attendance, contact 02-751-9182 (fax) or email [email protected], or register online at http://www.policy.aim.edu/SWS2008.asp. Ms. Monique Avila of the AIM Policy Center may be reached at 02-750-1010, local 2109, or at [email protected] for more details Contact SWS: www.sws.org.ph or [email protected]. # M. Mangahas, Social Climate, PDI 09-02 Jan 10 ”What’s the latest?” .