Archives

by Mansoor Ghouse, Management Consultant and Communication Specialist

In the democratic world, the rise and fall of Governments is determined by the electoral process. In the two party system, one might generally discern a cyclical nature in how Government by one party is generally followed by Government by the opposing one. Of course, coalitions are a fact of life; however they often lead a fragile, problem-prone interim existence.

This article focuses on the mechanism which leads to Governments losing popular support after one or more cycles of office. The idea is not to look at specific acts of commission or omission but to identify the basic mechanism behind it all.

corrupted by power

The fact that Governments tend to become complacent, arrogant and insensitive after too many years in office and to get corrupted by power and its excesses as so perceptively observed by Acton; that they lose touch with their constituencies and suffer from the delusions of infallibility and certitude: that too often they abuse power and fall victims to greed, financial corruption, and so-called pork-barrelled politics; that they victimize opponents, operate private militias, practise intimidation, bump off opponents, surround themselves with yes-men, sycophants, hitmen, and so-called advisors who tell them only what they want to hear.

The purpose is not to moralize on the illegal, criminal and degenerate behaviour of whoever is in power or to examine why they seek power in the first place. These issues will have to be discussed separately. Here the purpose is to examine a basic mechanism which leads to a state of mind that can spell disaster to the politician.

examine why

We will leave aside the matter of why parties win elections to examine why they lose them Well, they lose them basically because they have failed to identify the perceptions and needs of the electorate.

They have failed to ensure that they get factual and reliable feedback. Without having in place a systematic procedure for achieving that, they may get random feedback of sorts but usually unreliable and that can lead to an inaccurate picture of the state of mind of the electorate.

Losing parties realize with a shock that they have lost the allegiance of their constituencies, but by then, it is too late. It is important to remember that a constituent will rarely disclose his or her opinions to an MP or political leader; but in the assured secrecy of the ballot, he or she will have no reluctance to do so.

Before we disclose what specific steps can be taken to improve the reliability of feedback from the electorate, it is relevant to consider key factors contributing to a situation of non-disclosure.

First off, a politician on the winning side deludes himself by believing that the very fact of his winning his constituency means that he knows all about his electorate's needs, aspirations, problems, concerns, etc.

This is not necessarily the case but the important thing is the politician's failure to recognize that the constituents needs and concerns change over time. And that he or she must keep track of such changes.

minimal contact

This he often fails to do by keeping only minimal contact with his people; some hardly visit their electorates and even when they do, the contact is superficial, often brokered by self-seeking intermediaries, and notoriously devoted to making promises which are usually not kept.

This may be attributable to -

(a) Thinking he already knows and no feedback is required. Little does he realize that what he thinks of his constituents' needs are not usually the constituents' actual needs. There is usually a large perception gap. Over time, the politician hasn't a clue.

(b) The intrusion of so-called more important priorities connected with his office as an MP or worse, as a Minister, gives him little time to elicit feedback.

(c) the corruption of power and its pursuit may make him insensitive to or ignorant of his home-base's needs, and arrogant and cocky, besides.

(d)The granting of a constituent's overtly expressed need does not necessarily reflect his actual concerns. Many who detest the politician nevertheless make the best use of him to try to get their needs met.

An interesting sidelight is that the promotions granted, the pay rises issued, the making of casual staff permanent, customs duty reductions, job creations, etc rushed through by the Government just days before the elections evidently had little positive effect on the voting patterns of those concerned. They took what was given (thank you), and voted in terms of their private preferences.

(e) What is publicly said does not necessarily reflect one's private views. It may be thought that it is not safe to go public with one's views.

(f) The politician may not have earned the trust of the constituent. Initial trust may get eroded over time - arising from the politico's subsequent pronouncements, behaviour and actions.

(g) The politician's minions in the home-base may be damaging his image by their lording it over the home-base folk.

(h) The voter is not a moron. He sees what the politicians thinks he won't or can't see. He can see through bluff, deceit, bribery, manipulations etc. In the final analysis, no politician can pull the wool over the voters' eyes for long., though that belief has been the classical delusion of the politician.

It will be evident that were we to get genuine feedback, then corrective action to change perceptions, to meet actual needs, to solve real problems, to earn, and repair damage to trust, may be planned and taken. But how to get genuine, reliable feedback?

few guidelines offered

1) Keep in touch by actually visiting constituents often. Make oneself available. and approachable. Many politicoes lose their heads and look down on the "stupid" voter.

They can be approached only through a local intermediary who is often corrupt. Such visits are only par for the course. Many politicians do this already. But to little effect.

2) Earn trust. Trust before you ask them to trust you. Keep promises. Be authentic.

Put others before self. Put your behaviour where your mouth is. These are some basic ingredients for earning trust.

3) Know yourself. Know your strengths and weaknesses, your biases, prejudices, assumptions, pre-conceptions, hidden agendas and values. Factor these into your decisions and actions.

4) People are much more open with those whom they trust. (However, there is no sure way to get genuine Feedback.)

5) Level with people. Be one of them. Mix freely. Pay social obligations. Walk the extra mile.

6) But popularity is not the name of the game; Authenticity is. You must be seen as a genuine person.

7) Carry out opinion polls, not through a Government Agency but through a professional firm or Academia. However, results may not be reliable but some significant results may emerge. They will be more reliable than astrological forecasts.

8) Meet people in informal settings. Take special care to talk to the spouses. People are much more relaxed in such an environment and likely to be more self-disclosing. Take great care not to be perceived as a manipulator.

9) Encourage and actively support negative feedback. Welcome criticism and thank those who give it. Give public appreciation and acknowledge such people by name (after getting their OK). Don't shoot the messenger. The politicians should want people who'll say the King has no clothes on!

10) Arrange Open Houses from time to time. Again, encourage the free expression of opinion. Deal with adverse comments and questions in a friendly way. If you don't know you say so but you will find out and let the questioner know. And do it!

(11) Invite correspondence and send prompt and appreciative acknowledgements. Follow up.

(12) Remember to be highly cautious if only good news emerges from such contacts.

People like to say publicly that everything is Hunky-Dory, when the contrary is true. It's much more valuable to receive bad news which can point to shortcomings than to have OK news. This is the kind of feedback which needs encouragement, i.e. make people feel comfortable sending both good news and bad news.

speciality of inner circles

In politics, it is the vociferous circulation of good news with no basis in fact, which is the speciality of inner circles of advisors, flatterers, hangers-on, stooges, sycophants, astrologers, and sundry others with hidden agendas, who cause major damage. They experience a gravitational pull towards vulnerable VIPs. Eventually, VIPs succumb to the insidious influence of these advisors and thus get insulated and eventually cut off completely from the electorate.

One can't do without advisors, though but we have to be very, very cautious with them. Check what they tell you. It's good plan to have more than one circle of advisors under different names but ideas from one circle can be tossed to them as well. I believe President Bush uses this method. The fact that advice is well-intentioned doesn't make it any less dangerous. It is well to remember that advisors often have their own agendas to push.

13) As a general rule, it is not safe to rely on reports of intermediaries, subordinates, power brokers, contact men. They all have some degree of bias or vested interest which they are likely to push.

Seeing is believing

Wherever possible, visit the people concerned, or the problem site and see for yourself. Talk directly to the people. This is about as genuine unadulterated feedback as one can get, assuming the people are comfortable giving you feedback which tells the story like it is. Seeing is believing.

With ample feedback, especially the more valuable but rare negative feedback, the politico can take steps to maximize the benefits from it.

Do more of, and reinforce what seems to be going right, correct deficiencies promptly, correct misperceptions. This way, he is not likely to get hit across the solar plexus when the results are announced.

(An Opposition Party is more likely to be in accurate touch with the electorate. Borrowing the slogan made famous by the Avis Rent-a-Car Company, they might say "We're No 2. So we work harder". Opposition politicians work their constituencies more aggressively as well as more sensitively because they have no "pork barrel" to offer. They can promote ideology instead of perks, exploit a sense of grievance, get negative feedback regarding the governing party, establish more personal links and be available more often.

Also, they might benefit from the "underdog" label. On the whole, the feedback is likely to be much more reliable, and can be a valuable input into the strategy-making process at the highest level. Reportedly, the main Opposition politicians detected that a desire for change was widely prevalent prior to the recent election whereas their counterparts could generally detect no such thing. It is a truism that we see only what we wish to! Dissonant feedback is often screened out because it does not fit into existing stereotypes! This is an example of the well-known phenomenon in Communication Theory - Cognitive Dissonance).

These observations are of equal concern to the winners of an election. sooner or later, the miscommunication syndrome will take its toll and the winners will be making the same mistakes as today's losers. Eternal vigilance, enthusiastic selling of the message of the Feedback Principle (get professional help, if necessary), the Boss setting the example by doing it himself, and prompt corrective action, are likely to prevent or minimize disaster. Nothing should ever be taken for granted, starting from now.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager