Democratic Ambivalence: A Quantitative Case Analysis on its Rise in San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines

Article by Jessica Tiamzon, Abegail Delorino, Megalyn Gotiza, and Christopher Mantillas, Ph.D.

Abstract: Following the election of Duterte in 2016 and of Marcos Jr. in 2022, scholars point to the rise of democratic ambivalence, particularly of the Philippine middle-class, as a catalyst for an illiberal turn of Philippine democracy. It is, therefore, significant to recount the detriments of nurturing ambivalence and analyze the consequence of prevailing threats of populist upsurge towards democracy and processes of governance. More importantly, there is an increasing need to contextualize and scrutinize the setting wherein ambivalence is thriving to develop feasible solutions in addressing the trend of democratic backsliding. With this, the main objective of this research is to analyze how democratic ambivalence emerges in the Philippine setting, specifically in San Pedro, Laguna whose population is mostly composed of middle-class households. 

This study finds that the voters in San Pedro, Laguna show a high level of support for democracy, despite having only fair access to information. Meanwhile, they show neutrality in terms of satisfaction with the performance of the government, just as they are neutral in terms of participation in government processes. These findings point to a gap in the expectations and outcomes of Philippine democracy, and rather than focusing on the shortcomings of the voters, we emphasize some deficiencies of democratic institutions. The findings of this study are clear indications that Filipinos are constrained from democratic processes due to factors such as income inequalities, scarce access to information, and dissatisfaction with the performance of the government. This suggests that the middle-class should be awarded with a stable income through a stable occupation, the more likely they are to participate in and support democratic processes. These contentions were reflected in the results of the comparison of the occupation of the respondents and the indicators of democracy, as well as in the comparison of household income and the indicators of democracy. It must be acknowledged here that further improvements in economic opportunities would significantly reflect the increase in political participation and more exposure of the voters to democratic processes would guard against any attempts of orchestrated hostile intervention by anti-democratic elites.

Keywords: Ambivalence, Authoritarianism, Democracy, Philippines, Populism

Header Image: People Power Monument by Daniel Go is licensed under a CC BY-NC 2.0

Introduction 

Democratic ambivalence is a relatively new concept in the discipline of Political Science. Although it has existed since the 1950s, democratic ambivalence has only become noticeable in the Philippines during the 2016 and 2022 National Elections (see Groenendyk, 2018). With the limited literature on this concept, the researchers have developed a framework fundamentally based on Adele Webb’s (2017) analysis of the apparent shift in the voter’s political behavior as they showed conflicting ideas towards Philippine democracy. According to Webb’s conclusions, the Filipino middle class is mobilized by their frustrations and unmet demands from the democratic government. To further elaborate, we need to consider Dahl’s concept of Polyarchy as the foundation in explaining democracy. Dahl’s Polyarchy describes the requisites in achieving a fully democratized system of governance, and by extension, the preservation of such a system, namely 1) effective participation; 2) equal voting rights; 3) enlightened understanding; 4) the inspection of the program; and 5) all citizens have a legitimate stake in the electoral process. 

Pippa Norris (2011) offers a supplemental understanding of the emergence of democratic ambivalence in her conception of the Democratic Deficit. A direct excerpt described the Democratic Deficit as a result of “some combination of public expectations, negative news, and/or failing government performance,” (Norris, 2011, p.21). This, in Norris’ thesis, provides a great premise on the nature and depth of the relationship between ambivalence and democracy. Norris concluded that temporary deviance, or state exception, and unmet aspirations in democracies nurture democratic ambivalence. Likewise, it proposes that there is ambivalence if the level of satisfaction is indirectly proportional to support for democracy or participation. Norris emphasizes the importance of preserving citizen’s support for democracy by keeping them satisfied with the performance of the government. Timberman (2016) adds to this democratic deficit, explaining that at present, Philippine democracy is perceived by the middle class to be elite-driven and therefore distant from the ideals of democracy which guarantees the welfare of all citizens despite the difference in economic standing – such as occupations and income. 

With the 2022 Philippine National Elections, it is significant to recount the detriments of nurturing ambivalence and analyze the consequence of prevailing threats of populist upsurge towards democracy and processes of governance. More importantly, there is an increasing need to contextualize and scrutinize the setting wherein ambivalence is thriving to develop feasible solutions in addressing the trend of democratic backsliding. Taking into account the literature discussed above, the researchers identified the following indicators of democratic ambivalence concerning the integral principles of democratic political processes, namely: Support for Democracy, Access to Information, Satisfaction with the Performance of the Government, and Participation. These variables, contextualized through the results of the 2016 and 2022 national elections, and the economic status of the middle-income population in San Pedro, Laguna serve as fertile ground for this study. 

Profile of voters in San Pedro, Laguna

The respondents are voters who mostly received formal education up to tertiary education; it has been determined that either they have obtained their Bachelor’s Degree, or they are currently taking up their undergraduate studies. This reinforces the interpretation that the voting population in San Pedro, Laguna has fair access to formal education. Correspondingly, 118 out of 388, or a greater portion of the respondents are students, followed by drivers or riders who make up 47 out of 388 respondents, while 44 out of 388 respondents are unemployed at 11.3%. These respondents come from different income groups with over half of the sample population split between poor-income households (111 out of 388) and low-middle-income households (104 out of 388). While the occupations of the respondents are diverse, the categories mentioned do not necessarily imply that the respondents are tenured, or that these occupations would generate stable sources of income (See Appendix 1). 

Support for democracy

The respondents were found to be agreeable with democratic ideals, particularly with the process of elections being the ultimate determinant of the general will of the people.  Likewise, a great bulk of the respondents concur with the system of checks and balances typically found in most democratic governments. To illustrate, most of the voters in San Pedro, Laguna agree that elections can be contested in cases of electoral fraud and vote buying. Additionally, when they were asked about the citizens having the right to impeach a leader who is convicted of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, or graft and corruption, a greater majority of the respondents agreed.

According to Webb (2017), middle-class workers are more prone to ambivalence and changing views because their expectations from the government are oftentimes barely met. Ambivalent voters manifest a “negotiated response” wherein they try to negotiate their demands with the government to provide their basic needs, the protection of their rights, and the assurance of their freedom. In cases where one of these demands is unmet or compromised, their commitment to upholding the values of democracy conflicts as well. This narrative also suggests that the respondents deem the best remedy for such a situation is that democracy needs to be restrained and that the people need to be disciplined within the bounds of behavior that is deserving of freedom and democracy. The relation of this phenomenon to the occupation of the voters is often underemphasized. But it is important to acknowledge that middle-class workers shape mass politics and political participation (Albert et al., 2020) since they are the most affected by government performance and changes in economic factors, their beliefs, and conflicting views act as a driving force to the nation’s democratic processes and the democracy in general.

The strong support for democracy in San Pedro, Laguna shows the voters’ aspiration to curb vote buying, corruption, electoral fraud, and other practices through electoral retaliation. Moreover, the question “All citizens are free to participate in protests and rallies when they are unsatisfied with the performance of the government” is met with overwhelming support with 154 out of 388 strongly agreeing and 159 out of 388 agreeing. This further proves Tamano’s (2021) and Mansbridge & Macedo’s (2019) argument which states that democratic participation and citizen involvement in government processes increases when the government’s legitimacy is eroded by the failure of policies to satisfy public demands. Overall, the data gathered on the respondent’s support for democracy exhibit that they see democracy as an apt system of governance in the Philippines considering that such a system guarantees their enjoyment of their democratic and civil rights as citizens. 

Access to information

Access to information is measured through the frequency of the respondents’ efforts in knowing current political events and the state of the nation. Results show that most of the respondents never accessed any newspapers, academic articles/journals, and news about politics just as they had never discussed politics in their household. 203 out of 388 respondents claim that they never read the newspaper, and while 110 out of 388 always watch the television news, almost the same number of people (104 out of 388) never discuss politics in their household. Although they frequently watch the television news, they are not compelled enough to deliberately learn about current events. There are contesting explanations for this result. Merkel (2014 in Marenco, 2021) stated that studies affirmed inhibitions brought about by the capital system towards political participation and representation caused a decline in electoral turnouts of the middle and lower classes. Mendoza & Banaag (2020) contend that the lived experiences of citizens vary on their economic status in society. Taking into account that wealthier individuals from this class are a street ahead to better access to information, resulting in them with a better understanding of social-political events and power dynamics.

A similar study by Polacko (2020) supports this idea following his conclusion that income inequalities are inversely linked to voter turnout in Canada. This shows the level of support for democracy has a weak positive relationship with their access to information. Presumably, the more information they acquire, the more gradually they support democracy. However, in this observation, respondents show relatively weak access to such information hence the increase in support for democracy. Correspondingly, this is further explained by a study found in Kenya where the Kenyan middle class has shown a lack of interest in proactively participating in democratic processes, The Filipino middle-class was also said to be less dependent on state or publicly provided services. A closer look at this case in the Kenyan middle-class, claiming to have the potential to defend democracy, found that economic factors like wealth, education, and employment affect support for democracy (Cheeseman, 2015). Given that a relatively larger share of the research respondents come from poor to low-middle-income households, it is expected that they would have relatively lower access to information when compared to those of higher economic status. Nevertheless, they still show support for democratic ideals, as they are not entirely lacking in the means to be informed.

Satisfaction with the performance of the government

Tracing the roots of ambivalence, Webb (2018) quotes Pippa Norris (2011) who warned about the democratic deficit in countries wherein the citizen’s demands are unmet due to the mediocre performance of democracy. Norris (2011) relates public satisfaction with their demands to the growing ambivalence of individuals as those who show lower satisfaction tend to exhibit lesser support for democratic ideals (also see Timberman, 2016). While the respondents showed a high level of support for democracy, their satisfaction with the performance of the National and Local Governments remains neutral. When asked regarding the allocation of funds especially during natural disasters, the respondents found the efforts of the government insufficient. 

According to Berman & Snegovaya (2019), the rise of democratic ambivalence in the Philippines is a mere result of frustrations from the masses due to unmet public demands. To show an illustration from the answers gathered, 45% (171 out of 388) of the respondents were found to be quite satisfied with the performance of the government in terms of defending human rights and civil liberties despite their dissatisfaction with the government’s efforts in reducing inflation in the prices of goods as well as their efforts in curbing income inequalities. Meanwhile, when asked if the government has been effective in combating corruption, they neither agree nor disagree, and showed neutrality instead. The same answer is seen when asked whether the government prioritizes public interest or not. Similarly, when asked whether they feel that the government provides more job opportunities or if it provides equitable wages in order to curb income inequalities, the greater bulk of the respondents in San Pedro, Laguna showed neutrality. 

To reiterate Webb’s (2017) argument regarding democratic ambivalence and the voters’ confusion about whether to support or oppose democracy, these tendencies happen when the citizens, especially the middle-classes, believe that democracy should be upheld but be brought into question when abused. Webb (2017) added that while democratic leaders such as the Aquino administration, delivered stable democracy, the people yearn for “law and order” to safeguard the freedom they enjoy, and that “greater discipline” is as necessary to combat unaccepted practices. The concept of “needing discipline” comes from the same supporters of democratic rule, and the simultaneous support to the government as the primary defender of human rights and civil liberties and the neutral stance regarding government incompetence is a manifestation that most Filipinos value democracy and at the same time, fears that “too much” freedom derails its very own purpose.

Philippine flag at ‘Isang Milyong Martsa’ sa Luneta by James Sarmiento is licensed under a CC BY 2.0

Participation in democratic processes

Many studies prove the inhibitions posed by capitalism to political participation and representation as seen in the decline of electoral turnouts of the middle and lower classes (Merkel 2014, in Marenco, 2021). Mendoza & Banaag (2020) contend that although in theory, all citizens have the right to equal opportunities, the lived realities of citizens differ based on their economic standing in society. For example, wealthier citizens flex their influence in policymaking through media propaganda and political parties, plus they could afford better access to information which grants them a better understanding of socio-political events.  

Data from this study show that most voters in San Pedro, Laguna only actively participate during elections by exercising their right to suffrage and campaigning for their desired candidates. 38.68% of the respondents answered “neutral” when asked whether they campaign for the candidate they are voting for. Similarly, the statements “I joined organizations, labor unions, and other bodies that represent the sector I belong to” and whether they attend general assemblies within their local government are both answered with neutrality. Meanwhile, respondents strongly disagreed when asked if they joined mobilizations such as rallies and protests to amplify their advocacies. It is evident that the participation of the respondents is passive in nature, occasionally occurring, and is limited to those forms which entail little to no political, social, or even economic costs.

There is irony in the fact that the respondents, despite having a high level of support for democracy and a low level of satisfaction with the government’s performance, are not actively participating in the democratic process. In cases where there is an evident democratic deficit with the expectations and the outcomes post-democratization, there is an expected mobilization of the public to demand the government to deliver its promises (see Berman & Snegovaya, 2019). The public demands an increase in participation and citizen involvement in government processes when the government’s legitimacy is eroded by the failure of policies to satisfy public demands (see Tamano, 2021; Mansbridge & Macedo, 2019). Otherwise, the public would look for other avenues to increase their participation. 

Cheeseman (2015) added that wealth, education, and employment are strong factors that affect support for democracy. The support for democracy and at the same the lack of participation in its processes indicates that the voters in San Pedro, Laguna support democratic ideals but are deprived of the opportunity to participate due to socio-economic limitations, thus resulting in a neutral stance. To reiterate the findings in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty (2014 as noted by Webb, 2018) cautions that extreme income inequality would have significant repercussions towards democracy. In such cases, the displaced and disadvantaged citizens are found to be unsupportive of democracy and are less likely to participate in democratic processes (Berman & Snegovaya, 2019). This reiterates the observation that heavy labor kept the middle and lower classes from participating in democratic processes as they were too occupied to make a living in order to survive.

Conclusion

Following the election of populist leaders in Southeast Asia – from the likes of Duterte in the Philippines to Shinawatra in Thailand, who capitalized on the public’s desire for law and order, scholars observed an illiberal turn for democracy (Kurlantzick, 2020). Although a larger number of scholars see this trend as a surprise, Garrido (2020) points out that this was the culmination of dissatisfaction or resentment which translated to democratic ambivalence. The generalized results of the data show neutrality, the standard deviation of the respondents’ frequency of access to information and the level of agreement to their satisfaction plus their participation show that the responses are not concentrated on Neutral. The high number of standard deviation indicates a conflict in the respondents’ level of agreement rather than the general misconception that neutrality equates to indecisiveness, and these findings can help us understand Webb’s (2017) contention that voters from the middle-class show tendencies of conflicting ideas and behaviors towards democracy due to unsatisfied demands from the current regime. 

These findings are clear indications that Filipinos are constrained from democratic processes due to the following factors such as income inequalities, scarce access to information, and dissatisfaction with the performance of the government. Rather than focusing on the shortcomings of the voters, we place emphasis on some deficiencies of democratic institutions. It must be acknowledged here that further improvements in economic opportunities would significantly reflect the increase in political participation and more exposure of the voters to democratic processes would guard against any attempts of orchestrated hostile intervention by an anti-democratic elite.

Reference

Albert, J. R. G., Abrigo, M. R., Quimba, F. M. A., & Vizmanos, J. F. V. (2020). Poverty, the Middle Class, and Income Distribution amid COVID-19. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics. https://ideas.repec.org/p/phd/dpaper/dp_2020-22.html

Berman, S., & Snegovaya, M. (2019). Populism and the Decline of Social Democracy. Journal of Democracy 30(3), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2019.0038

Cheeseman, N. (2015). “No bourgeoisie, no democracy”? The political attitudes of the Kenyan middle class. Journal of International Development, 27(5), 647-664. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3057

Dahl, R. A. (2008). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.

Garrido, M. (2020). Democracy as Disorder: Institutionalized Sources of Democratic Ambivalence Among the Upper and Middle Class in Manila. Social Forces. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaa046

Groenendyk, E. (2018). Competing motives in a polarized electorate: Political responsiveness, identity defensiveness, and the rise of partisan antipathy. Political Psychology, 39, 159-171. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12481

Kurlantzick, J. (2020). The Pandemic and Southeast Asia’s Democratic Struggles. Current History, 119(818), 228–233. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48614549

Mansbridge, J., & Macedo, S. (2019). Populism and democratic theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15(1), 59-77. http://www.princeton.edu/~macedo/Papers/Mansbridge%20Macedo%20Populism%20AnnRevLawSocSci%2019.pdf

Marenco, M. (2021). Capitalism and democracy in the twenty-first century: does it still take two to tango?. Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 52(1), 134-140. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2021.23

Mendoza, R. U., & Banaag, M. S. (2020). Political and Economic Inequality: Insights from Philippine Data on Political Dynasties. Journal of Global South Studies, 37(2), 294-319. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/784203/summary

Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.

Polacko, M. (2020). Party Positions, Income Inequality, and Voter Turnout in Canada, 1984-2015. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(9), 1324-1347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764220941238

Tamano, K. (2021). Deliberative Democracy and the Paradox of Participation. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 30(1), 122-139. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ijjs.12116

Timberman, D.G. (2016). The Vote in the Philippines: Elite Democracy Disrupted?Journal of Democracy 27(4), 135-144. http://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0069

Webb, A. (2018). In Praise of Democratic Ambivalence. Democratic Theory, 5(2), 17-36.https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/democratic-theory/5/2/dt050203.xml

Webb, A. (2017). Why are the middle class misbehaving?: exploring democratic ambivalence and authoritarian nostalgia. Philippine Sociological Review, 77-102. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45014

APPENDIX 1

Tabulation of Demographic Profile (Raw Data)

 

Educational Attainment	Frequency	Percentage (%)
ELEMENTARY	20	5
JUNIOR HIGHSCHOOL	68	18
SENIOR HIGHSCHOOL	91	23
UNDERGRADUATE (Bachelor’s Degree)	185	48
Graduate Studies (Master’s/Doctorate)	24	6
TOTAL	388	100
Occupation (ex.: Student, Unemployed, Teacher)	Frequency	Percentage (%)
BPO/CALLCENTER AGENT	38	9.79
BUSINESS OWNERS	7	1.80
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS	9	2.32
DRIVER/RIDER	47	12.11
FACTORY WORKERS	19	4.90
FASTFOOD CREW	5	1.29
FREELANCER	15	3.87
Merchandiser/Chain Market Workers	16	4.12
OFFICE WORKERS/ GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES	18	4.64
OTHERS	31	7.99
STUDENTS	118	30.41
TEACHERS/PROFESSOR	21	5.41
UNEMPLOYED	44	11.34
TOTAL	388	100
Household Income per month	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Less than Php 11,690	111	28.61
Php 11,690 to Php 23, 381	51	13.14
Php 23, 382 to Php 46,761	104	26.80
Php 46, 762 to Php 81, 832	82	21.13
Php 81,833 to Php 140,284	34	8.76
Php 140,285 to Php 233, 806	6	1.55
TOTAL	388	100

[PDF]