Very recent results from election-spending research done by Nielsen Philippines reveal that from November 30, 2015 to January 1, 2016, our presidential candidates coughed out nearly P1.6 billion on television advertisements in 2015. And we are just talking about TV here. And the race has just started. Nothing yet about other media forms, publicity gimmicks, provincial sorties and other campaign-related activities. And three more months to go.
Those who closely monitor the entirety of the electoral exercise from start to finish would shudder in utter disbelief on how these candidates can afford to spend so wildly to get them their government seat and, yet, others see the silver lining in all this spending.
Brighter side of the issue
In fact, Cielito F. Habito, former National Economic and Development Authority chief, said spending related to the elections show some influence in GDP growth. He also opined that funds from abroad go back to the country and is circulated back to the economy. He went on by citing a lower average of GDP growth rate in nonelection years compared to election years. He said that during election years, there was a 2-percent to 3-percent point increase in the GDP. However, Habito stated that, while this is a positive indication, the growth is not widespread and is only focused on the services sector, particularly on mass media.
Standard Chartered chimed in by predicting that the 2016 elections would boost our country’s economic growth. The GDP is expected to increase to 6 percent. The impact will be felt as the manufacturing, communication and government services sectors receive inputs from other sectors due to high backward linkages.
As a result, there will be more demand from other sectors, such as the utilities and trade sectors. Standard Chartered also expect the presidential and vice presidential candidates to spend up to P10 billion ($213.27 million), or 0.08 percent of the GDP, on their respective campaigns.
Legal concerns
Ultimately, the question would be whether all these electoral spending complies with our governing laws. The Omnibus Election Code, among others, fixes the amounts and the kind of expenditures that a registered political party and a candidate can spend. Prohibited contributions and ways of raising financing for campaigns are also clearly provided. The obvious objective is to curb the evils that are produced by rampant misuse of all the money that goes into the exercise of suffrage.
Experience shows that, indeed, funding can make a lot of difference in running a successful electoral campaign. Effective campaign machineries involve an interplay of good public relations, image enhancement and public opinion formation in favor of the candidate. Big PR firms, advertising agencies, political strategists and analysts are, likewise, tapped for their expertise depending on the assessment of where the candidate is in terms of ranking. Widespread use of traditional media and now, tri-media are a critical success factor. All these account for the huge amounts of money that circulate during
election season.
Arena for the big warriors
While needed, electoral spending is seen as a compass for political equity. Candidates, who have more financial resources, have a better chance at getting elected, they say. On the other hand, those who have demonstrated the utmost commitment to serve the public interest are sidelined by their lack of funding. Worst, some political personalities see the elections as an investment initiative. They earn from it and winning does not even seem to be an issue. This painful reality debases and subverts the electoral process, engenders corruption and gradually erodes our democratic system of government.
These negative perceptions have led some critics to believe that the 2015 budget might be used for the 2016 elections. Infrastructure projects, social-welfare programs of late are viewed as campaign tools to lure the people to vote in a particular manner.
War chest is not everything
However, the direct relationship between the level of electoral spending and victory at the polls is not straightforward. Some of the richest candidates do not end up winning. This phenomenon is prevalent not only in the US but in other parts of the world. So, megabucks without a coherent and persuasive platform will not yield surefire positive results.
Still, our people must relentlessly observe and monitor the campaign behavior of our political candidates. The Commission on Elections and other election watchdogs must fulfill its statutory duty of making sure that there is a level playing field in the upcoming elections.
Excessive, unregulated spending and commercialization of the elections threaten good governance and shall send a wrong signal to those who regard the exercise as a vehicle to improve their lives. And yes, every peso spent to further democracy matters.
For comments and suggestions, send to arielnepo.businessmirror@gmail.com.