31 Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy May 2011 -- markedly fewer people believed that a second Aquino administration meant QOL improvements were forthcoming. Even congenitally hopeful, perhaps even desperately hopeful, Filipinos do learn from their oft-painful history. Figure 2. CHANGES IN THE RESPONDENTS' PERSONAL QUALITY OF LIFE (June 1999 to May 2011 / Philippines) OPTIMIST GAINERS/ OPTIMIST LOSERS OPTIMIST 5 JUL201 4 OCT2010 3 MAR2001 JUN2001 2 SEP'99 JUN'99 MAY200 JUL2007 MAR201 FEB2004 MAR2000 AUG2009 APR2002/SEP2003 OCT200 DEC2001 MAR201 JUL2000 JUL2002 AUG2003 MAR2007 MAY2011 JAN2004 NOV200 DEC'99 OCT2001 DEC2000 NOV200 FEB200 OCT2007 OCT2000 JUN2004 MAY2009 MAR2008 NOV2006 APR2003 NOV2004 OCT2008 JUL2006 OCT2004 MAR2005 JUL2005 JUN2005 MAR2006 1 LOSERS 0 -10 -20 -30 GAINERS OCT2005 -40 -50 JUL2008 GAINERS/ PESSIMIST LOSERS/ PESSIMIST -60 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 PESSIMIST Sources: June 1999 - May 2011: Pulse Asia, Inc. "Democratic" or otherwise, governance regimes in the Philippines had not worked to improve the material life of most Filipinos. Though a lucky few definitely had their quality of life tremendously improved, the great majority remained handicapped by poverty. (This particularly good fortune for a selected few continued whether the national economy was doing well or faring badly.) The same surveys cited above also capture another indicator of failed political and economic "democratic" administration: the huge number of Filipinos who attest to their being "poor" or "very poor." Across the years, roughly 6 to 7 out of 10 Filipinos self-rate themselves as such (see Figure 3). While the chart below shows the record of public perceptions only for the past ten years, other survey data exist showing that this telling statistic has remained virtually the same from Marcos through Aquino to Ramos, Estrada, Arroyo and the present, another Aquino.