About Elections
Elections. They are the high feast of democracy. Every so many years we elect people to represent us on the different levels of government. Parliaments, community councils, regional bodies, … The principle is that every person has a vote to cast and can have an influence on policy.
How does one decide for which party or politician to vote. There are many politicians and the differences between the party programs are often just a nuance. Only the extreme parties, both on left and right, can differentiate themselves by adopting hardline opinions.
So if everyone looks alike, who can one choose to do “the right thing”?
It all boils down to trust and trustworthiness. The trustworthiness of someone is defined by their competence (what they can do) and their intentions (loyalty, integrity) or character.
Seduction
Let’s say that the election period is a time where politicians want to seduce the voter. They do do that
- by stressing what they have done for the voter.
- by stressing what they will do for the voter.
The first part is backed by political evidence. The list of achievements is often long. Giving service to the electorate is one of the ways for a politician to survive. When the list is not long enough, the reasons why it did not happen could be listed. But usually, politicians do not bother too much with why explaining they haven’t done what they’ve promised so many years ago. That’s something for the opposition and the press to do. And if they are confronted with the lack of progress they can always blame the coalition partner, the opposition, the system, the budget, the market, the circumstances.
The second part is about the intentions. And these are more interesting. You can see the achievements for the past as a kind of testimonial and proof of competence. But it’s unwise to vote for a politician who has done something in the past without looking to what they can do in the future. However, many voters vote because of the past, as as sign of gratitude or trust.
Lack of Trust
Research shows that politicians and institutions score low on trustworthiness. And that is of course a problem. Because if you do not trust the political system, who will you vote for? That’s one of the secrets of success for populist politicians. They create an image of untrustworthiness of the established politicians. Trump has repeatedly said he would “drain the swamp“. The distrust towards politicians is an important weapon in the electoral battle.
The question is how politicians have gotten to that. Why can an electoral fight not be an honourable competition between civilised people based on a debate? A part of the political fight is like that. But it’s not the content of the debate that seduces people. It’s more and more the way they conduct this debate. It’s not about the arguments, it’s about the argutainment.
It’s not about the arguments, it’s about the argutainment
A matter of interest
Like every selection procedure, the electoral debate is about the interests of both the politician and the electorate. And also about the feasibility of what is promised or expected and what is feasible.
If the electorate wants B + C, and the politicians thinks it should be A + B, then the politicians will mainly talk about B when talking to their electorate during the elections. They will avoid talking about A, because A may go against the interests of that electorate, even though they know that the answers lie there. If A + B = B + C (–> A=C) there is a perfect match.
Populist politicians, or someone desperate to be elected might talk about B + C, promising C to the voters even when they think C is not desirable. If the politician after being elected would execute C, there is no big problem in terms of delivery on promises. Give to the people, what the people want.
It would be more problematic if politicians promise B + C, but execute A + B afterwards. At that moment they betray their promise. And that’s the difficulty of coalitions. When two parties govern together, it might be so that the government agrees to A + B, whilst the electorate of a party expected B + C. That is why coalition negotiations are so difficult. Because the A + B might be different for various political parties, whereas the B+C might be different for various segments of the electorate.
An example.
When Trump promises to drain the swamp, he addresses the B + C of a (big) part of the electorate. Once in office, he is confronted with reality and depends on the system to govern. He can try and change the system, using all means he has, but that will be a slow progress. But by sticking to the B + C, he can blame the system for boycotting what the people really want. He is in office and in the opposition at the same time.
That’s the same for a Flemish nationalist party in Belgium. One of the party’s lines of thinking is to make Flanders independent. But as Belgium is a federal state, they need to participate to the federal way of politics and so they become a part of the federal establishment. And that is why the president of the party is not a part of any government (he’s the mayor of a major city) and can oppose to what the government does. That is because the B + C of the party is not the same as the B + C of the government.
But what about the A? Courageous politicians will go to their electorate and tell them that the C is maybe not what we should do. It’s the A. But by focusing too much on that, they might not get elected. There are politicians who have done that, but sometimes they don’t get the mandate.
Are we bothered by realism?
There is another dimension. Feasibility. Sometimes there is a distance between what a politician thinks and what is feasible. And the same goes for what the electorate expects.
Promising something that is not feasible will not inspire trust. But politicians do that. If you look at the list of actions they promise, it’s clear that it’s not possible to do all that. Only the budgetary dimensions of the promises are not credible.
We all know that are pension schemes are under pressure and that people will need to work longer. But there are politicians who deny that fact and defend the interests of the segment of the electorate who does not want that.
How to Choose the “Right” Politician?
Here’s a list of questions that may help you when choosing the right politician. These questions are based on Schoorman & Ballinger (2006) as cited by Schoorman, Mayer & Davis (2007) and on Ovans (2014).
Questions about Competence
- This politician is very capable of performing the job.
- This politician has much knowledge about the work that needs to be done. I feel very confident about their skills.
Questions about Loyalty
- My interests are very important to this politician. They will go out of their way to help me. They have a strong sense of justice.
- I never have to wonder whether this politician will stick to the deal.
- This politician would not knowingly do anything that hurts my interests
Questions about Integrity
- This politician has a strong sense of justice. He will say what is necessary and will not avoid hot topics.
- I never have to wonder whether this politician will stick to the espoused principles and values.
- This politician tries hard to be fair in dealing with others.
- The actions and behaviors of this politician are consistent.
- Sound principles seem to guide this politician’s behavior.
The Interests of the Politician.
The recently deceased American John McCain was an example of a trustworthy politician. He had principles and defended them. He was able to express the “A” and would not follow the “C” if he was not convinced that is was the right thing to do.
But he did not get elected as president. Maybe there is no room for nuance and courage anymore. Or maybe he diluted his message by asking Sarah Palin as running mate.
When looking at the intentions of politicians, their interests are important too. Maybe the interest of a politician is to get elected. Idealistic politicians want to get elected because they want to good things for their electorate (they focus on the B). But politicians can also want to be elected, to be elected. The professional politicians who make their livelihood out of politics have other interests than serving their nation. There is nothing wrong with people earning money by being a politician. But these dynasties of politicians who build a power base in order to remain in office and defend whatever interests, should be looked upon with care.
On the international level it is Mr Putin who wears the crown. How he has managed to stay in office is impressive. But in every parliament there are people who got elected but do not serve the general interest. And even on a local level there are also mayors who stay longer than is good for the community. The interest to get elected it clearly an A-interest and has nothing to do with B + C. The trick is to sell it as such, by saying that the alternative is worse. For Mrs May the alternative would be Mr Corbyn, which is in her eyes worse. And so her interest to remain in office (maybe her A-interest) is sold as a general interest.
Trust Matters
It’s very difficult to decipher a politician’s trustworthiness. The decision-making process of people is biased. We are flooded with electoral communications and at the end we might decide to avoid loss (this politician will defend my pension), on similarity (this politician looks like me, comes from the same background), on emotion(I like this politician), on lack of information (what you see is all there is, I only know this politician, I have always voted for this party), on recency (this politician has made sure the road works were completed, usually right before the elections), … But these aspects have nothing to do with trust. On the contrary, politicians use those biases to influence the decision.
Character is not what gets them elected. It’s reputation.
I argue that people should overcome their biases by looking for information about the trustworthiness of a politician or party. And what inspires trust is not the position of someone (he’s been mayor for years), the power of someone (he is well connected in the capital) or the popularity of someone (everybody likes him). It’s a politician’s character that is important. But unfortunately, character is not what gets them elected. It’s reputation. And we all know how one can influence that. So look beyond reputation and biases and base your vote on trust.
Trust is a decision. Take it. Vote wisely.
______________________________________________________________
This article is based on David’s book on Sustainable Leadership. Leaders need to inspire trust, using their character. Find out more about the book here.
David Ducheyne is the founder of otolith and advises organisations on the human side of strategy execution. He focuses on leadership, organisation design and people strategies.
Register for the otolith newsletter here.
