The Psychology of Elections (Part II)

By Rev. Dr. Marcus Lashley

Much has been said about the decreasing number of eligible Barbadians voting in recent elections. Our current ‘first past the post’ system is deficient as a measure of the mind and will of the true majority of the nation. While we are not unique in this reality, what is shocking is that as a democracy, this problem does not rise to the surface as a key concern for all political parties, and one may ask, why should it? If ‘winning’ is determined by simple majority, then all that matters is ‘winning.’ Even if, for example, a party wins an election with a voter turnout of thirty percent of the potential voting pool, then the right to govern cannot be challenged. These issues as well as fixed election dates were raised at many of the constitutional reform town hall meetings and should be settled with some urgency.

In governing, a party, even with such a small proportion of the general adult population, might frequently say, and strongly argue, that they have a ‘mandate’ from the people. This word carries significant psychological weight and commands a gravitas which is equated to absolute permission. As is the case in other countries, it is often used to legitimize the execution of campaign promises and manifesto pledges. Those governing then say, “why are you complaining, you gave us a clear / huge mandate and we are only executing what we said we would do; your voting us into office, was more than tacit consent.”

Given the trend over the decades, and looking at the logical future projection, if this slide is not corrected, then our elections will become meaningless as a reflection of the true will of the people. It is therefore legitimate for us to ask what are some of the reasons why this phenomenon has gripped so many eligible voters.

The pundits, political and social scientists have used terms like disengagement, disaffection or voter apathy. In this local election, this is a statistically unambiguous reality. However, there are several psychological reasons why this is our current state of affairs.

One reason why this is the case lies in the current perception of politicians. Over time, the level of high esteem with which those facing the electorate were held has diminished significantly. Politicians being suspected of criminal action, ‘crossing the floor,’ being invisible after the campaign is over and not keeping electoral promises are some of the common reasons cited. To the public, it is seen as a game that is played with the intention of getting into office and then cruising to the next election with minimum effort. Even with the benefit of our existing technologies, there is still a huge distance between the candidate/representative and the electorate. Politicians are therefore often viewed with a jaundiced eye. From the days of Shakespeare, lawyers were always viewed with some suspicion; however, when the lawyer becomes a politician, their image is psychologically not enhanced.

Secondly, voter apathy and disengagement are also the product of a larger detachment by many in society from all institutional systems and perceived sources of power and authority. From our schools to government institutions, there is a defiance which is pervasive. We are fast losing respect for those in authority and sadly, this even extends to religious leaders.

Thirdly, voters are in a position where they are forced to question the veracity of the messaging coming from the political parties. While the age of technology has allowed us some further free amusement at this time through the many short clips and memes, it ultimately means that we cannot always fully trust what we see with our eyes and hear with our ears. If as we know, behavior is predicated upon decision-making and decision-making is the product of assimilation and assessment of information gathered through the senses, then voters are left in a quandary. What is worse, if the source (the politician) is seen as not the most trusted source, then no wonder so many voters are retreating from party affiliation and the voting process.

In this campaign season, voters are constantly bombarded by an overwhelming amount of information, but this is controlled by those sending the message. In other words, our thoughts, emotions and actions are deliberately being manipulated. Our engagement with the various political machinery is intended to narrow our focus. What is missing in this country at the moment is the capacity of the voter to share with politicians what their concerns are and what would motivate them to vote. Beyond the limited polling mechanisms, canvassing and focus groups, politicians are limited in their assessment of the mood and temperature of adult citizens. Bajans are masters of keeping their anger or affection at polling time close to their chest. What would be more empowering would be robust systems of lobbying, immediate scientifically governed feedback from visitors to meetings and a targeted engagement of the ‘undecided’ voters. They need their own forum to interface with the parties.

It is so easy to miss the fact that you never see spot meetings or mass meetings in Sandy Lane, Millennium Heights or the neighborhood of high net-worth individuals. The psychology of such actions suggests that those to be targeted are the lower-to-middle-income voter and the person of easy persuasion. What must concern every right-thinking citizen is the developing culture described by someone as ‘hand out and mouth open’ politics. The perception that candidates must meet our domestic needs or do for us what we should be doing for ourselves perpetuates the dirty secret and rampant allegations of vote buying or vote trading; it makes our sacred democratic duty, a strictly transactional enterprise. The next generation of voters will not only see it as normative, but also as something to be demanded.

From a psychological perspective, this election will be won or lost based on three factors. The first is the competence of parties to motivate all of their members to vote for their candidate. The second, the power of women and youth to have their voice heard at the ballot box. The third and most critical is the capacity of parties to motivate (through whatever means) disaffected and undecided eligible voters to feel valued and empowered.

Rev. Dr. Marcus Lashley is an Anglican Priest and Clinical Psychologist