Expect the Same Faces: How Surveys,
Vote Buying, and Pseudo-Programs of "Action"
Undermine the People's Right to Choose
As election season looms once more, the familiar routine begins to unfold. The same old faces—incumbents and political dynasties—dominate every conceivable media platform. Their smiles beam from posters and billboards, their rehearsed statements echo on television screens, and their names remain entrenched in surveys, as though the public’s choice has already been predetermined. This raises a troubling question: Are these leaders genuinely chosen by the people, or are they the products of a political system that relies on surveys to manufacture consent?
Surveys, originally intended to gauge public opinion, have now become powerful tools that influence, if not dictate, electoral outcomes. The electorate is conditioned to equate popularity with leadership ability, as if appearing at the top of survey results inherently translates to competence or public service. This perception creates a bandwagon effect—voters are nudged into supporting candidates who already seem “winnable” rather than those with substantive platforms.
However, what often secures high survey rankings is not public trust earned through effective governance but through a relentless, resource-heavy campaign for visibility. In a system dominated by patronage and political machinery, it is no secret that surveys can reflect not genuine approval but a politician’s capacity to sustain media presence and distribute short-term favors. This setup allows the political elite to entrench their influence, ensuring that the elections become little more than a formality, with outcomes that feel increasingly inevitable.
The Role of Vote-Buying, “Pseudo-Charity”, and pretentious "Programs"
At the heart of this survey-driven system lies a troubling reliance on transactional politics. Instead of focusing on their fundamental role as lawmakers—crafting policies that address the needs of their constituents—many incumbents divert public funds to activities that secure their visibility and perceived goodwill. These range from “pseudo-charity” programs like distributing food packs and organizing medical missions, to outright vote-buying thinly veiled as financial aid. While such efforts may temporarily alleviate suffering, they do nothing to address the systemic poverty and inequality that plague communities.
Worse, this practice reinforces a cycle of dependency. Voters, especially those from marginalized sectors, are conditioned to see their political leaders as patrons rather than public servants. The legislator becomes synonymous with the benefactor, and elections become less about platforms and visions for the future and more about securing immediate, tangible rewards. The feudal undertones of this relationship are clear: power remains concentrated among a select few families and their loyal allies, while the broader populace remains disempowered.
Surveys as Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
Surveys play a significant role in perpetuating this status quo. They provide a veneer of legitimacy to political dynasties and incumbents by reinforcing their popularity, which in turn creates a feedback loop. Candidates who perform well in surveys attract more media coverage, more endorsements, and more resources, further amplifying their advantage. Those at the margins—emerging leaders, independent candidates, and reform-oriented politicians—struggle to break through, their platforms drowned out by the noise of manufactured popularity.
The reliance on surveys also narrows public discourse. Instead of engaging with meaningful debates about policy and governance, the political conversation becomes fixated on horse-race metrics: “Who’s leading?” “Who’s gaining ground?” “Who’s slipping in the polls?” This shallow coverage deprives voters of the opportunity to critically evaluate candidates beyond their ranking. The focus on winnability sidelines the question of whether these politicians are actually fit to serve.
A Feudal System in Democratic Disguise
The Philippine electoral process continues to operate under the illusion of a “liberal-democratic space,” where citizens supposedly have the power to choose their leaders freely. In reality, the system remains deeply feudal. Political families treat their positions as hereditary rights, consolidating their control through vast patronage networks and the strategic use of resources. Elections are reduced to rituals that reinforce the dominance of entrenched elites, while genuine democratic participation is stifled.
The role of surveys in this system cannot be understated. By presenting the same names over and over again as the inevitable winners, they legitimize the status quo. Voters, disillusioned by decades of unfulfilled promises, are left with little choice but to accept the names that dominate the headlines. The result is a political landscape where change feels unattainable and the same faces remain in power, election after election.
Breaking the Cycle
To challenge this entrenched system, a fundamental shift in political culture is needed. First, there must be a renewed focus on the actual responsibilities of legislators. Lawmaking—crafting policies that address poverty, inequality, corruption, and systemic injustice—should take precedence over performative charity and vote-buying schemes. Legislators must be held accountable not for how many survey points they gain but for the concrete impact of their work on their constituents’ lives.
Second, media and voters alike must resist the tendency to prioritize surveys over substance. The narrative of “winnability” must be replaced with meaningful discussions about platforms, track records, and visions for the future. Independent and emerging leaders must be given space to challenge the status quo, and voters must be empowered to make decisions based on informed judgment, not preordained outcomes.
Finally, there must be stronger safeguards to prevent the misuse of public funds for electoral gain. Campaign finance laws must be enforced, and mechanisms to curb patronage politics must be strengthened. A genuine democracy cannot thrive when public resources are weaponized to perpetuate the power of a few.
Conclusion
The upcoming elections are a test—not just of leadership but of the nation’s commitment to democracy. If the same faces continue to dominate ballots because surveys dictate their inevitability, then the democratic process becomes little more than theater. It is time to reject the illusion of choice and demand a political system that empowers the people. The Philippines must break free from the feudal structures that masquerade as democracy and reclaim elections as a tool for genuine representation and progress.
Until then, expect the same faces, the same names, and the same promises—manufactured by surveys and maintained by a system that serves the powerful at the expense of the people.