Social media has arguably reshaped the landscape of Philippine electoral politics as a platform for spreading awareness and engaging in discourse.

In a Philippine Daily Inquirer article, Association of Political Consultants in Asia Political Analyst Malou Tiquia calls social media “the new terrain [for campaigning], the fastest, the cheapest.”

Additionally, in an interview with The GUIDON, Rappler Investigative Desk Head Chay Hofileña said that social media can “spark conversations even between, or among, people who have not been in person or had not known each other previously.”

The Association of Political Consultants in Asia is a professional group of individuals working in the field of politics, while Rappler is a social news network.

The growth of social media can be attributed to the expansion of Filipinos’ Internet connectivity in recent years. Since the Philippine senatorial elections of 2013, the previous Inquirer article reports that the number of Filipinos logged on to the Internet has risen from 30% to 50% of the total population.

The report also mentioned that 41 million Filipinos aged 18 to 65, all eligible voters, are connected to the popular social media site Facebook.

However, despite the growth in Filipinos’ online presence, Tiquia and Hofileña both note that the extent of social media’s impact on the electorate has yet to be fully seen.

In the same article, Tiquia argues that for this year’s electoral period, “only a few candidates appreciate online [campaigning] because the others don’t understand how to measure [its influence].”

Hofileña adds that the biggest question for this election’s candidates is, “Are they using social media and maximizing it as an effective campaign tool?”

Impact on information

Sociology and Anthropology Lecturer Niño Leviste asserts that Philippine politics as depicted in social media derives elements from both personality-centric politics and issue-based politics—or better known as traditional politics and non-traditional politics.

Leviste says that traditional politics in social media is manifested in the prevalence of online campaigns that capitalize on the strengths and personas of the candidates. However, he also acknowledges the increasing efforts of social media in allowing netizens to discuss pertinent national issues and to evaluate the platforms of running candidates, which are signs of non-traditional politics.

“I believe there is an attempt to orient netizens and the general public towards a brand of politics that does not entirely delve into personalities. That is a good sign because there is an attempt in social media to be critical,” Leviste adds.

For Hofileña, social media is “both boon and bane,” a “working democracy,” where everyone is given a platform for self-expression. With social media being a platform that is open to all types of information, Hofileña says that netizens should be careful in accepting the information that is presented to them by social media.

“Social media can be instructive too because it can be a test of patience and tolerance of opinion that runs counter to your own,” Hofileña adds. “During an election period, social media can be an asset if used intelligently.”

Leviste adds that social media has a “democratizing effect” to people because it does not only inform them about electoral matters but also invites them to the larger discussion.

However, in terms of voting, he believes that citizens should be more observant when it comes to looking for concrete data and evidence.

“Through social media, I believe that the best antidote to that is for netizens to actually use social media to do research [and] to actually look for information–concrete and solid enough to persuade or dissuade them from voting for a particular party,” he says.

Ateneo Task Force (ATF) Communication Management Head Lyka Aguilar also observes how the traditional and non-traditional brands of politics clash with each other through circulated information on social media.

She adds that ATF strongly advocates for the responsible usage of social media in educating the public on proper voting procedures and exposing critical information on the running candidates to guide the voters in their discernment.

“[Social media] enables an average citizen to be engaged in something as crucial as the national elections. But in the same breath, it can also open uninformed discussions [and spread] misleading ideas, in turn restricting the information a user can or should absorb,” Aguilar says.

Extent of representation

As much as social media attempts to broaden its scope across the nation, the platform itself remains exclusive to Filipinos who have Internet access. In a 2014 report released by the United Nations, nearly 37% of the Filipino population was able to access the Internet for 2013.

Analogously, Leviste believes that registered Filipino voters who have access to social media only represent a small fraction among the larger Filipino electorate. Moreover, he surmises that social media users mostly belong to the middle class of society, who have a completely different interpretation of politics and set of beliefs compared to the lower classes.

As reported by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism in 2000, voters from Classes D and E comprise around 93% of the Philippine electorate. These social classes are identified as the “lower classes” of Filipino society. Hence, the other 7% is comprised of upper and middle class constituents, forming the Class ABC voting bloc.

“The posts that are being advertised or uploaded in social media actually reflect a certain sensibility that is associated with a particular class in society. These sensibilities are opinions [that] may not be the opinions of the majority of Filipinos who are underprivileged,” Leviste says.

Because citizens have polarizing opinions of politics based on their social class, Leviste explains that the usage of social media only further creates segmentation of Filipino society, which magnifies the existing social inequalities in the country.

“The reason why it is so hard for us to achieve substantial change in Philippine society is because classes D and E are not able to feel the relevance of what members of the upper class and middle class are talking about. They feel disconnected, [and] disenfranchised even,” Leviste says.

Not necessarily a game changer

Leviste cautions that while social media has great potential to be a vehicle of change, he “refuses to conclude that it is a great equalizer,” given social media’s incomplete representation of all socio-economic classes.

Nevertheless, Leviste believes that social media is still “an important aspect of modern democratic politics” and “whether or not that would translate into a more radical transformation of Philippine politics remains to be seen.”

In addition, Leviste points out that social media can potentially address the divide between Filipino netizens and non-netizens. According to him, social media can be platform for discussing alternative viewpoints from different classes. “It can be the venue for promoting an alternative lifestyle, idea, or set of values and beliefs,” he says.

On the other hand, Hofileña stresses that social media on its own will not win an election. She explains that social media does not yet include the marginalized, who comprise the country’s largest demographic.

“[A winning candidate] will require a combination of on-the-ground and off-the-ground efforts,” she adds.

In spite of a vast majority of Filipinos who lack Internet access, Hofileña says that they can still be “influenced and swayed” by those who are active in social media.

Ultimately for Aguilar, social media’s potential as an agent of change is only as good as its users. While she believes that social media “definitely aids in making information reach millions of Filipinos nationwide,” she cautions that “coming across information online does not result in them completely understanding the information.”

She urges social media users, especially first-time voters from the youth, to heighten their awareness on electoral issues via social media, but at the same time exercise vigilance in discerning the information they absorb.

Aguilar adds that while social media “enables users to be more critical about their votes by the sheer amount of information that circulates in it,” the platform also poses the danger of “uninformed and misleading information.”