TO THE EDITOR: Deceptions of elections

11:00 Fri 25 Jul 2008

Elections: the decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual or party to hold formal office.

This is the usual mechanism by which modern democracy fills offices in the legislature, sometimes in the executive and judiciary, and for regional and local government.

During election campaigns, everybody talks about politicians or rather, candidates, however there are also some very interesting participants in elections which are not so much talked about; they are called voters.

Candidates are the most interesting thing in the time of elections; they will tell us anything that will likely lead them to great victory. They will lie, deceive and guarantee the impossible, sing and dance, cry and laugh, and all that in order to win. In that campaign, they will give us so many promises, that if we ask them just a few hours later about them, they will not remember them, and will give us new ones in order to deceive us further.

Later, if they are elected to formal office, they will start giving us excuses for the lost promises in order to maintain political power.

It is evident that while campaigning, candidates will tell us things we like to hear and agree with just to make us think that they are good, smart, dedicated and considerate, among other things. However, almost everything they say was written and prepared in advance for that occasion by the campaign staff in order to attract more voters. In most cases, especially in democratic systems, candidates heavily rely on finance from private donors, selected individuals, groups or industry. If elected, they have an obligation to reimburse supporters for their contributions by protecting and supporting their businesses, no matter what that business might be.

We all know what candidates do, but what about voters?

Voters are a group of people gathered around to make some decision or express their opinion often in discussions, debates and election campaigns. Voters support their favourite candidates, they go to rallies and listen what their favourite candidates has to say, they analyse them, agree or disagree with them, and in the end, and they make the final decision on Election Day. However, on Election Day, not all of the supporters vote for their desired candidate that they supported throughout the year, not all voters are faithful to their candidate.

To make things more clear, let’s use the 2008 United States presidential elections as an example: candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, and the voters.

It appears that Americans are fascinated with democratic candidate Barack Obama, possibly more so than with any other presidential candidate in US history; many talk about him, adore him and cheer for him.

On the other side, republican candidate John McCain was selected in the US primaries a long time before Obama, it was clear that he was chosen one on this side, but it looks like people are not so hot for him as they are for Obama.

According to these indicators, we may feel that Barack Obama will become new president of the United States, but will he?

The chances for Barack Obama to become the next president may not be as good as they look. Yes, people are hot for him, but voters are not to be trusted.

Voters like something new, new radical changes, new and different politician, new ideas, and fresh promises, among others. However, it does not necessarily mean that they will vote for these things. For Obama, his chances of winning would be better if he got less attention.

Voters are just regular people, and on Election Day they realise the show is over and start thinking in different directions. Voters are very interesting; they often say one thing and do other. It is obvious that voters complain about and criticise certain politicians day by day and in the end, vote for them. It appears that as more mistakes and scandals a politician makes and do nothing for the nation, the more chances are that voters will vote
for him, especially for the second time. As examples, there are George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Jacques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi, among others.

In the end, democracy is not like a communist regime; in democracy it may not really be as important which politician or candidate comes to power, as long as democracy continues to be the ruling mechanism, as long as they do not take extra power. The system will continue to work; plans and ideas will continue to be executed, no matter who is in charge. The only thing that is changing is the interests of the financiers or ruling elite who financed the elected candidate. If financiers are from weapons industry, then there will be new wars. We may prefer financiers from the toy industry, with toys for everyone.

Ivan Simic
Belgrade, Serbia

Comments

Comments by Daniel Onyango - 01:35 26 Jul 2008
	With due respect to Ivan Simic's speculative comments( as opposed to analysis)of voters' intent and actual praxis, in relation to actual voting- I beg to differ. I want to be specific, and use empirical data to refute his stance. Britain in post-Thatcher years was in economic(usually significant), social and political decline.John Major tried to shore up Conservative party support across the nation; it did not work, even though his CV(a self-made son of a working class family) would have appealed to a population that sides with the under-dog. Then comes in Tony Blair, young, intelligent and articulate. He champions the tenets of what Labour stands for:you get a return for what you put in, and downplays the contribution of the Upper-class. Remember; unemployment is at its lowest; the gap between the rich and poor is wide; taxation favours the rich(Long working hours never translated into a proportionate income). Disenchantmet with the Conservative party leads to a leaning towards TONY BLAIR first( the symbol of change), and then Labour party. As his rating is high, a landslide win in the 1997 elections follows.True to his promises, economy grows, unemployment drops, and lifestyle improves for a time. With the exception of George W. Bush's last election, we find a parallel of Blair's election when Bill Clinton campaigned against George H. Bush. Granted that G.H.B was not Reagan, still the US economy was declining, America was entangled in a war in Kuwait. Despite attempts to paint Clinton in the negative( He used trickery to miss military service) his opinion polls still rise because AMERICA WANTS CHANGE. His younger age symbolised that change that was so desperately needed. Again remember, the Clinton years were excellent in terms of the economy. The Lewinsky scandal was an aberration compared to the success of Clinton years. These successes do seem to stick in the minds of voters for a long time. What needs to be emphasized is that the PERCEPTION of the VOTER, their judgement( owing to the evidence at hand) is what wins elections, NOT THE SO CALLED UNPREDICTABILITY OF OPINION POLLS. It worked with George W. Bush against Kerry, yes, but that is the exception rather than the rule.