admin
Michael Mhlanga
THURSDAY the 14th of June was the electoral Nomination Court day in Zimbabwe. With all-over-sprayed venues servicing the interest of both the “given” and self-imposed mandate to lead the people, the day shall be engraved in both the hearts and minds of many.
In Bulawayo, where I was, I had the opportunity to observe proceedings at the still colonial (Robert) Tredgold Magistrates’ Court where National Assembly aspirants submitted their (in)complete nomination papers and the Council Chambers where City Mothers and Fathers — aspirants — jostled to lodge their intents before the 16th hour of the day.
One could not mistake the convergence and submission of leadership papers by the old and frail: some abetted to walk, the young with the agenda of the agenda-less: full of zeal but vacant of ideas, visibly hungry: definitely struggling to make ends meet, probably borrowed a dollar for transport to town and the plump and rich: who either are engrossed to serve the people or eager to politically protect their privilege.
Strikingly as I watched the suited and pugnaciously dressed political postulants, I wondered if their present appearance influences voters. Does one’s visible poverty invite a (sympathetic) vote from us who have been victims of misfortune? Are we the struggling members of the society inspired by one who has failed to escape paucity? To whom do we the poor look up to?
Will our mandate be placed on someone who is independent and despises associations? Do we trust rich men and women who promise to make our lives better only when we give them the mandate?
With a stretched history of “unvoting” Zanu-PF in Bulawayo has our attitude changed this time? There are “white” people running for public office; does race influence our sway in favour? After all the chaos of oppositional factions and discourses of secession, is opposition’s radicalness and its prolonged failures the answer to the “imagined” Canaan? With countless questions, I was triggered to portion what I think influences voter decision from a peri-political science perspective and the reality in Zimbabwe.
Coming to the forthcoming plebiscite, what will inform and influence voters? I draw three (3) predictors which many social scientists have agreed to be (i) Party loyalty, (ii) issues involved in an election and (iii) characteristics of the candidates running for office. These three indicators are not exhaustive but are overriding ones that have and will influence voting behaviour in July. Let’s start with party loyalty since this is supposedly the single largest predictor of how a person will vote.
Party Loyalty.
People identify with a political party for a number of reasons. Some develop a psychological attachment to their party, often from youth through the family environment just like religion. One’s parents can have a powerful effect on whether one identifies as Zanu-PF or MDC. I admit that there is a significant number of young people who have joined opposition politics in rebellion to their parents’ support of the revolutionary party, but in the predominance of conservativeness reside in (e.g. rural areas), family background heavily influences political party loyalty. In many instances many people will identify with a particular party because they believe that the party’s ideals coincided with their personal ideology (think of Agrarians and Pan Africanists and their shared philosophy with Zanu-PF). This is where we get the MDCs are liberals and Zanu-PF are conservatives dichotomy whose part in our politics has shaped contemporary discourse.
In an environment with a tremendous increase of independent candidates arguing the loss of faith in institutions, I still argue that our electorate trusts organised institutions more than an independent. Looking at constituencies where independents won, the process has never been about voting that independent candidate, it has always been about “unvoting” Zanu-PF. The process of voting and “unvoting” stems from the liking and disliking dichotomy.
The core truth is that in Zimbabwe, people like or dislike Zanu-PF and anything else is a façade or fluke. Wherever Zanu-PF loses it’s not because the electorate prefers the opposition — as it will be the only option given, but it’s because they are disliking Zanu-PF at that moment and they choose to punish the ruling party — that is the process of NOT “voting” for the opposition but simply “unvoting” Zanu-PF. People are loyal to parties and they vote or “unvote” for parties, not individuals.
Candidate characteristics
Voters are attracted by a candidate’s race, ethnicity, religion and/ or gender (rarely the case in Zimbabwe). Sometimes these characteristics are more obvious than other times and uninformed voters may rely on stereotypes of candidates especially when it comes to race, ethnicity or religion. Another personal characteristic that seems important in this instance is geography which in this case means the region the candidate is identified as from.
This seems to be a dangerously decisive tool in 2018 where ethnic belonging is used for mobilisation by secession groups. It has also played a part in the past elections where voters would vote for someone because he is from Zvimba, Buchwa, Madlambuzi, Siphepha or Mhondoro-Ngezi. A community feels recognised and better represented when one of theirs is in power.
Another characteristic that is supposed to make a difference to voters is social background. The assumption here is that voters choose candidates whom they believe are similar to themselves in terms of social class but have moved up the social ladder.
Coupled with lies in opposition and futuristic promises by independents who have to mortgage their property with the hope of recovering it through sitting allowances, this election will be very interesting, especially watching those who don’t have much to their name and are far from inspiring us who have none at all.
Candidates’ position on issues
The third factor that influences how voters make their choice is where the candidate stands on issues. I would hope that this would be the voter’s top priority but in fact this is pretty far down on the list. There are two types of issue voting: retrospective and prospective voting and both add information costs to voters’ decisions. Retrospective voting is when a voter chooses a candidate based on that candidate’s past performance.
This type of issue analysis by voters is in many occasions time consuming as a lot of time and research goes into it and many a times people have no such time. It then works for those who have been in office before and ride on how they used the Ward Retention Funds, Community Development Fund, donor agency facilitation, road gravelling, storm drain maintenance and a few petty milestones they claim in a bid to solicit for re-election.
It also works for them when they attach their parties’ success to their success.
However, for independents, the terrain demands an extra stretch as they bank on retrospective debunking where they besmirch the past officer and claim that they cannot do better. They tell people not to recycle deadwood.
The second type of issue voting is Prospective voting which is voting based on the imagined future performance of a candidate. This has been Nelson Chamisa’s trump card. The Bullet Train, 41 Billion Dollar economy and spaghetti roads are classical examples of prospective issues. Truth be told, people want hope, people love dreams and there are people who are buying into that. However, it appeals to the urbanites who are a mere 20+/- % of the voters.
The rhetoric is alien to the masses who decide the 2018 outcome. This is the reason why party and independent candidates will tell you that they will fully account for the Community Development Fund (well, in many cases some constituencies have never seen a dime of the $50k). They promise the electorate an “imagined” community — this is the part where verbal scene painting and imagined good only works in realism. What I have realised is that most aspiring candidates do not have a clue of the functions of the postulated office. Bridges and drainage maintenance are jobs for councillors, not MPs, get it in your heads Comrades!
One thing that accommodates these three factors is how informed the electorate is. It is argued that the more informed the electorate is, the more heavily issues and candidate characteristics matter. Since this is not present in Zimbabwe as we have seen that Zimbabweans are not well informed when it comes to voting, it means party affiliation is particularly the largest predictor of election influence. The truth is that this election will be hard for independents, will be hard for those with a bad track record of servitude and extremely hard for the poor folk whose social background does not inspire those they belong to the same group with. Have you ever wondered why rich people are respected and trusted even if we know that we should not trust whatever they say?
Well . . .
Yikho khona lokhu!
Online Reporter