Daily Times

The general elections will be upon us in only a few months. Keen observers would note that the last thing politicians want to talk about is politics. They are only concentrating on tactics which can help them grab your vote. Let me share some tricks that I have found through reliable research, which could influence the next elections.

The most interesting question for a strategist is not about who won the election but why people voted for him or her in the first place. The unique aspects of Pakistani elections need to be blended with knowledge of the Pakistani people’s voting behaviours to formulate reliable answers in this regard. To begin with, one must understand how the voters make up their minds and the historical changes in their voting patterns.

Winning candidates are chosen by the voters on the basis of party policy, performance and personal character. Other swaying factors include: race, religion, stances on burning issues, ideology and loyalty. Changes in electoral blueprints are induced by the state of the economy, national establishment and international players. The influence of “black-swan” events such as the death of Benazir Bhutto cannot be ignored either.

Some politicians believe that if one man cannot impose his will on another, 120 million men have no right to impose their will on anyone either. As a result, voting can be perceived as inconvenient, time-consuming and even pointless. You stay at home, and assume that you have not voted. This is not correct because you either vote by voting, or by staying away and tacitly increasing the votes of the candidate you had hoped would lose. Evidence from the last elections suggests that ‘someone else’ can also vote on your behalf.

Political parties and candidates raise and save money for a blitz of advertising and rallies at the end of the campaign; the assumption is that people forget what they saw and heard earlier. However, research shows that first impressions really matter because if people liked or disliked you at the first encounter, their opinion rarely changes afterwards. Current strategies of saving the big buck for the end-game, therefore, are misplaced and politicians should spend money (and time) earlier on making a good first impression.

I am also sorry to confirm that negative campaigning really works. People focus more on the shortcomings of the candidates than their merits. However, mud-slinging needs to be organised creatively so that one is not smeared by one’s own mud. And, for a high turnout, have someone on the ballot that people really hate. Psychologically, people are more motivated by the threat of something bad than prospects for good. So in order to win, you need a saint (people want to vote for), but more importantly, a villain (people want to defeat) on the ballot paper.

People once voted along the social divide while maintaining social and partisan alignments. Since the electorate became more educated, a cognitive mobilisation has occurred that has made them more aware of current issues and motivated them to pursue better alternatives

Our genes shape 40 percent of our political values. We are predisposed to incline towards those who are excited by new experiences or towards those who stick to the status quo. The rest is explained by theories such as ‘Rational Choice’ where voters make personal decisions as consumers do when deciding which product to buy. People once voted along the social divide while maintaining social and partisan alignments. Since the electorate became more educated, a cognitive mobilisation has taken place where they are more aware of the issues and go for better alternatives.

Since the election of Donald Trump as President of the US, Russian involvement in the 2016 US Presidential election has been making international headlines. A report from Freedom House (US) has found that governments in 30 countries mass-produced media content to manipulate the elections. The use of paid commentators and fake news to spread government-sponsored disinformation has gone global now. Some of us were members of a team that crafted the winning media strategy for the 2013 elections. We had a limited amount of data to play with on social media and for mobile phones. What has since been achieved through government resources and machinery is anybody’s guess. For example, spear-phishing the manufacturers with malware and corrupting their voting and counting machines could be a serious threat today.

Some parties have wised up since the last elections and brought in ‘Electables’ to match the local resources and knowledge of their opponents. What they may not foresee is the old ‘divide and win’ trick — it had its test-run in the NA-120 by-election. If you have a choice of several right wing candidates and only one liberal on the ballot paper, who is more likely to win? Similarly, Gerrymandering may have been employed in the NA-122 by-election where someone redistricts the unfriendly voters out of the constituency — a process in which candidates choose their constituents before their constituents choose them.

Data is used in the elections to decide where to hold rallies, which seats to target, and how to communicate with supporters and undecided voters. The latest trick is to use data to profile individuals, and use these profiles to personalise political messaging. Using profiling to manipulate individuals to vote in a certain way is dangerous, almost existential threat to democracy. Between the special ink, ballot box, voting/counting machines and unqualified election officials, the next election is up for grabs for those with tall promises, local presence, backing from the establishment and a keen interest in cyber-kinetic technology. This was the year someone should have gone to Davos instead of a faith-healer.

The writer is a Consultant Psychiatrist and Visiting Professor. He tweets @AamerSarfarz

Published in Daily Times, February 7^th 2018.