Pursuing higher education has an effect on political participation in the Philippines. Let us take the case of the May 2010 National Election, before the election a lot of people is thinking about the candidates whom they will vote. Though by observation many Filipinos are politically aware, this is a contrary to statistics of having small percent of registered voters as compared to the total population. Through participating in the elections, Filipinos would be given the chance to participate politically and vote for the candidate they think would be most suitable and effective for that position. There is high significance in choosing the right candidate as this could contribute to the betterment of their lives. However, not everyone would take such opportunity to participate in the elections, so we can actually take note of and study how different people respond to different political activities (e.g., voting, joining political organizations and forums), particularly how political participation depends on one’s education attainment. After all, conventional wisdom holds that education plays the key role in determining political participation.
People’s participation in politics contributes to the development of society – when people participate, they get to speak for themselves and voice out their opinions. Check and balance exists as the power to decide and govern is not centralized upon one person or a single group of people. Education plays a vital role in an individual’s life and promotes active participation in various fields. Education allows a person to learn and develop necessary social and civic skills, making him or her more aware and concerned of his or her environment and driving him or her to actively engage in activities to address personal and communal needs and wants.
Education, being a powerful explanatory variable of political participation, provides theoretical implication as to why people with higher education are likely to participate more than their less-educated counterparts. It has been established that education positively affects political participation. Political participation does not only comprise voting, it also involves other political activities such as attending political events, staying informed about politics and working on campaigns (Putnam, 1995). Educational attainment being the most potent predictor of an adult’s political participation was observed by Verba, Schlozman, and Burns in 2003. Education was observed as a mobilizing tool to participate socially and intellectually. However, despite the fact that there have been social and economic evidences that education is positively correlated to political participation, a literature gap exists as to how education really affects political participation.
Education and Political Participation
Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995) define political participation as “activity that has the intent or effect of influencing public action, either directly, by influencing the making of public policy, or indirectly, by influencing the selection of political decision makers” (as cited in Alesina & Giuliano, 2009). According to them, this definition includes voting, campaigning for a party or supporting party work through other means (e.g. policy development, membership drives), contacting policy-makers directly by writing or telephone, engaging in protest activities, getting involved in organizations that take a stand in politics, taking part in informal efforts to solve community problems, and serving in a voluntary capacity on local governing boards such as school or zoning boards. In short, political participation intends to either directly influence collectively binding decisions or indirectly control the selection of representatives making these decisions (Walter & Rosenberger, 2007), thus making it a valuable tool for reform and policy-making. What then determines the political participation of an individual?
Conventional wisdom asserts that education is a very important, if not the most important; factor in determining the political involvement of an individual. In most empirical analyses (Shields & Goidel 1997; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1996; Wolfinger & Rosenstone 1980), education is even the strongest predictor of political participation even when other socioeconomic factors are considered (as cited in Hillygus, 2005). The popular view of education which places schooling as a primary cause for political participation was aptly represented by Converse’s (1972) noting that ‘whether one is dealing with cognitive matters or motivational matters or question of actual behavior, such as engagement in any of a variety of political activities from party work to vote turnout itself, education is everywhere the universal solvent, and the relationship is always in the same direction’ (as cited in Kam & Palmer, 2008). Further, Converse believed that the educated citizen is attentive, knowledgeable, and participatory, and the uneducated citizen is not.
The conventional view of education places it as a primary cause for political participation. Education has become an indispensable variable in regression models tracing the predictors of political participation. The effects of education are mainly thought to be human-capital enhancing. Schooling provides individuals with proper skills, such as cognitive and interpersonal skills. These skills are necessary to understand and ascertain political issues and their importance and to be able to intermingle with other people in political forums. More importantly, schooling fosters among individuals a sense of civic duty. This attitude allows for a greater citizenry that is aware of its political environment and actively engages in political discourses and activities. Furthermore, education enhances political competence (Almond & Verba 1963/1989, 173), efficacy (Campbell et al. 1960/1980; Wolfinger & Rosenstone 1980), and interest (Wolfinger & Rosenstone 1980; as cited in Kam & Palmer, 2008).
In as much as education enhances cognitive and interpersonal skills, it also cultivates civic skills in an individual. The schooling environment helps shape a person’s civic orientation, which is important in political participation in that it largely influences an individual’s decision and interest in joining political activities. Civic orientation include interest in politics, discussions about political events, attentiveness to politics in media, trust in one’s own political competence, feelings of responsibility on part of political authorities, and trust in as well as satisfaction with democratic institutions and authorities (Walter & Rosenberger, 2008). These affective attitudes, in tandem with cognitive skills acquired in school, may very well initiate the desire to be politically active.
In a complementary view, Nie, Junn, and Stehlik-Barry (1996) argue that educational attainment acts as a sorting mechanism that allows citizens to obtain higher prestige occupations, higher wealth, and greater involvement in voluntary organizations (as cited in Kam & Palmer, 2008). These three intervening indicators then place citizens in more or less economically, socially, and politically connected networks, which subsequently facilitate participation. People with higher education are presumed to have a larger income and better job status, thus making them more capable and more inclined to making donations to various political activities, organizations, and candidates (Walter & Roenberger, 2008). Moreover, these individuals with higher education, income, and job status are in a position where he or she can use resources and networks advantageously to get him or she involved in politics. Education, under this view, has an indirect effect on political participation in the sense that since education is a determinant of an individual's future occupation, income, and status, the more the educated a person is, the greater the chance of him being involved in organized activities, such as politics.
In sum, the conventional view perceives education as a cause of political participation not only because it enhances human-capital but also because it affects the civic attitude, social position, network, and status of an individual.
Gender and Political Participation
The increasing number of women in politics especially in the Philippines pushes other women to participate politically. Former president Corazon Aquino and current president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo are considered once of the most powerful people in the society, given that they are the only elected women who became presidents of the Philippines. Men are geared towards on increasing their capabilities and making themselves more competitive. In this case there is an opportunity cost of politically participating and making themselves more marketable.
Income and Political Participation
Following the findings of Nie, Junn, and Stehlik-Barry (1996), and Rosenstone and Hansen (1993/2000), income and political participation are directly related. As the income of an individual increases, so will his or her political involvement. Higher income not only increases the resources available for participation and the opportunities to develop civic skills (necessary for political activity), it also place individuals in networks where they are more likely to be mobilized into politics. Wealthy people usually have higher social statuses which put them in strategic positions, allowing them greater access to politics. Taking advantage of their network of people by participating politically permits them not only to maintain their status but also to reap other benefits (e.g., influence on government policies which affect them) as well. This positive relationship between income and political participation, however, does not seem to be strongly evident in the Philippine setting. That is not to say that the rich do not participate at all, but what we are implying is that being a rich person in the Philippines does not always translate to higher political participation. Historically, the affluent Filipino classes have participated less than their underprivileged counterpart, the poor Filipinos. This trend may particularly be explained by the concepts of opportunity cost and welfare.
References:
Verba, et al. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
