Presidential corruption – a corrupted survey?

The latest in the no let-up bashing of President Arroyo was the survey results which revealed that among the past presidents she is the most corrupt. Broadcast worldwide in multi-media channels, the report no doubt has thickened the smear on the president as a person and as a politician. At the same time it has confirmed the recent findings by an international agency that this country is among the most corrupt in the global scene. This survey report, aired as they were as generalization, is unfair to both the president and the nation.

The survey was supposed to be a survey of perception, but this was not even mentioned in the broadcast media, although pointed out in passing in the print outlets. Between actuality and perception, there is of course, a gulf of difference. Perception could be judgmental while an actual situation is one based on facts or evidence. But where are the facts or evidence in the claim that PGMA is the most corrupt occupant of Malacañang? Of the corruption under former presidents Marcos and Estrada, the evidence is voluminous, no argument on this. But with PGMA? What exist are accusations and accusations articulated actively by an over-active opposition. Such headliners as the Hello-Garci, the fertilizer scam, and lately, the bribery hullabaloo along with the aborted ZTE deal have remained unsubstantiated. But repeatedly harped in the media the perception of corruption emerged.

This is not an attempt to sugar-coat PGMA because the truth is that scandal after scandal has been at the tail end of her governance. But fair is fair. For how could she be more corrupt, for one, than the former dictator of a president? Has she dismantled the Constitution and created her own? Has she herded the opposition politicians to the stockades? Has she padlocked radio stations which aired critical views? And worse of all, has she stashed away billions of dollars abroad? Right now we are still reeling with the burden of foreign debts wantonly incurred during Martial Law. Who did this but that dictator-president? Was he not then the most corrupt of all corrupt presidents?

Lately, who was convicted of plunder? Who pocketed hundreds of millions from jueting and from a contrived stock market deal? Who maintained a bevy of mistresses housed in mansions? Yet PGMA is worse than this guy?

The trouble with a survey of this kind is that the results could be manipulated to please whoever footed the bills. An opposition senator was said to have commissioned the survey outfit concerned. No wonder the outcome is titillating to his ears. There are many ways to make a survey produce the results desired. For example, if the respondents or majority of them are from areas known to be antipathetical to the administration, the outcome could not be otherwise but something unpleasant to the latter. If the same respondents have not been properly sampled, using accepted sampling methods, the results could also be questionable. For instance, if the respondents have not been evenly distributed according to income level or academic attainment (if these were the criteria), then a lopsided result could be generated. Even the way the questions were worded and the manner these were asked could also influence the results.

These are only a few of the pitfalls in the process of research, which if the researcher is not careful enough or competent enough, could bring out misinformation or wrong perceptions. But even if these requisites have been observed, there is still the factor of professionalism and credibility on the part of the research leadership. These qualities are a must, needless to say, because minus these the activity could be open to abuse.

That’s why in most developed countries research activities are usually undertaken by reputable organizations under support by neutral bodies such as academic or socio-economic foundations. The activities are therefore free from the influence of vested interests and their outputs are generally accepted. In contrast, the so-called research bodies in this country are commercial groups organized for profit. They have to make money or fold up. And who can be a good source of money but the politicians?

The most corrupt president? Even without research most Filipinos know the answer.

*  *  *

Email:   [email protected]