Latest update May 15th, 2024 12:30 AM
Nov 13, 2011 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev
With elections just two weeks away, it’s very clear that after all the sanctimonious talk over the past few years about a “new politics”, it’s pretty much the “same ole, same ole”. While some may rail over the putative unwillingness of the political parties to keep focused on the “issues” and to explain their “programmes”, it appears that the politicians are aware of what makes the average voter tick. And as it comes down to crunch time, they’ll be sticking ever closer to the (messy) script we’ve seen unfolding.
In 1964, Philip Converse published a landmark paper, “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics”, which for the first time provided hard evidence – from extensive polling data collected by Michigan University Survey Research Centre – of the almost total lack of familiarity by ordinary voters of esoteric variables such as “ideology” in making their choices in elections.
This shook the world of democratic theorists to the roots since they had always assumed that the “informed and knowledgeable voter” formed the bedrock of modern democracies. The most recent investigators (into the new millennium), following up on Converse’s work, have shown that average voters are actually unaware of even elementary political information, such as what policies are being offered to them in “manifestoes” and what were the rationales behind them, much less knowledge of ideologies.
In politics, or of any subject for that matter, there would always be a bell-curve distribution on the possession of knowledge of the given issue. That is, there would be some individuals who are very well versed in the subject, even if in relative rather than absolute terms. In politics, these are typically the political elites – especially those ensconced in Universities and think tanks – who are the ideologues. Research has shown, however, that the problem with these ideologues is that their worldview is influenced inordinately by the tenets of their ideology. They literally see only what their ideology tells them to see. Contrary data and findings are dismissed as ‘anomalous” and a few even dismiss the messengers as being “biased”. Luckily, their numbers are always very small – some 2% at maximum.
So what does the general public depend on in making up their minds to vote? One should not equate “political ignorance” with ignorance tout court. Generally, according to Converse and his successors, they go on the basis of their feelings about members of “visible social groupings” (in Guyana, read “ethnic groups/race”), “the nature of the times”, political parties etc. The voters would have experienced specific circumstances, which guide them in choosing what on their hierarchy of needs they believe to be most threatened.
Typically voters form a heuristic or shorthand summary in determining their political behaviour and voting choices. In Guyana, we have labelled this heuristic the “Ethnic Security Dilemmas”. This use of a heuristic has been demonstrated in many polities – especially in the supposedly “developed democracies”. I have written about the “Black Utility Heuristic” in the USA that emanates from the notion of a “linked fate” that is shared by most African-Americans, regardless of their class position. Based on their history, most African-Americans are still convinced that their individual fate is linked with the fate of the group.
In Guyana, there are some that are hoping the ethnic cleavages that characterised our general elections up to now have receded. But that voting pattern was determined by the local “ethnic security dilemma” heuristic. Has the latter become irrelevant? And if so, what is the new heuristic? One objective change that I have pointed out is the changed demographics from the early days when the heuristic was formulated. Indians are now far below 40% of the population – the last census ten years ago pegged them at 43% but there is their greater rate of emigration. Has their security dilemma (of existential physical threat) been alleviated? I have my doubts.
The African/Mixed groups, which traditionally voted as a bloc from the sixties onwards, are now over 50% of the voting population. Their security dilemma – of being excluded from the executive because of their former minority status – has now been overcome. But will they continue to see themselves as a minority as the Indians did, even when they had the numbers because of the power relations? What is their present voting heuristic? Two weeks to the finish line, their traditional party appears to have lost its mobilisation script and it is obvious that their votes will once again be splintered.
Finally, the Indigenous Peoples are finally on centre stage as their swing numbers can finally make the difference. Their voting heuristic has traditionally been the pragmatic one of a minority that cannot win it all: go with the party most capable of winning. Ironically, their choice might now be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
U.S. Fighter Jets and U.K. War Ships coming to protect Guyanese
May 15, 2024
Kaieteur Sports – Young players of Guyanese lineage who are residing overseas will have a chance to earn a spot in Guyana’s youth national training programme through the inaugural...Kaieteur News – The PPP is cagey when it comes to constitutional change at the national level. Its General Secretary... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Is it ever justifiable for journalism to fan the flames of geopolitical tension? This question arises... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]