How do we decide which leader to vote for? Which party to elect into the parliament? On a superficial note, the answers are regurgitated every day in the evening talk shows. A single word diagnosis like corruption, freedom, or democracy may also suffice. But experimental psychologists and social scientists believe the answers to these questions are way more complicated than we imagine. To explain, let me ask you why is corruption more important to us than freedom of expression or continuation of the democratic process? If you think you can respond by charting a simple mathematical formula, think again! You calculate the total debt of Pakistan which stands at around $90 billion then estimate that we have lost $100 billion in corruption which aligns with many unofficial quotes. Through a tough accountability process, you reckon you can recover that money, the only condition being a non-corrupt Prime Minister holding the office. Once those assets are put back in the public accounts, you claim to pay off the local and international loans achieving the long awaited financial independence. You can spend the leftover $10 Billion on infrastructure and human development. So far so good, but, seriously is it that easy? Do simple mathematical formulas solve complex economic, legal, constitutional and social problems? The reason why it’s not possible is because, firstly, you may not have factored a timeline in your equation. It takes years to carry out an extensive investigation. It is followed by prosecution in one court only to be appealed in another. Once cleared, you move on to collect the rewards. Good luck with that if the assets in question are located outside Pakistan as you will now deal with the laws of another country. If you think you can respond by charting a simple mathematical formula, think again! You calculate the total debt of Pakistan which stands at around $90 billion then estimate that we have lost $100 billion in corruption which aligns with many unofficial quotes. Through a tough accountability process, you reckon you can recover that money, the only condition being a non-corrupt Prime Minister holding the office Remember the sixty million dollars frozen in the Swiss Bank accounts? How much did Pakistan get back? So far, I have not even added the cost of these procedures. In some circumstances, your overhead bill alone may lead you to bankruptcy. Second, evaluate the percentage of money that actually gets recovered in comparison with the expected amount: facts versus fantasies. Many times, it falls way below 50 per cent. After subtracting the expenditures and time value of money, it can sink into an abyss. Do you have any data regarding the impact of political turmoil on economy and the loss of revenue because of that? Just a few days ago, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mian Nawaz Sharif landed back in the country. Without going into details, we know it cost the government millions of dollars in blocking the rallies, providing them security, transporting them to Rawalpindi and closing down the local businesses. As of now, we have not got even a single penny back in the last three years, however, we have seen at least 25 per cent drop in the value of Pakistan Rupees as compared to the US Dollar and a 10 per cent drop in the stock market. Furthermore, do you know of a country which has averted an economic crisis by collecting money from a subset of corrupt politicians? I say subset because everyone knows, it is not the corruption that gets you in trouble rather it is the political ideology. I don’t want to dissuade the public from pursuing the accountability process. Having said that, I just don’t want people to fall prey to what is known as the Planning Fallacy which essentially means we minimise the time and risks involved in our minds for a project which was difficult to begin with. Don’t get me wrong, after corruption if we dissect the ideal of freedom of speech or the continuation of the democratic process, we will encounter the same challenges. Then, what happens in our minds that sway us one way or another? Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Laureate in Economics, has addressed this phenomenon in his book Thinking Fast and Slow. He says when people are faced with difficult decisions, like which stock to pick or which party to vote for, our brains guide us to rely upon shortcuts, also known as heuristics or the rules of thumb. He tells us about an Asset fund manager who chooses to purchase the stocks of Ford Motor Company because he likes the company products, i.e. the cars that Ford builds- an easy choice. The investor does not go through the company financials, its growth pattern or profitability. He just likes the cars. And once he likes them, the decision is made, job done. Daniel Kahneman explains since the decision to evaluate a stock is difficult, our brains find an easier option, which is whether or not we like the Ford Cars. I think the same mechanism works in politics. The deeper questions do not concern us as much, we decide to vote for the party based on our personal inclinations, our likings and disliking. To further complicate our choices, politicians instinctively know how to be likable. That is why even the most Western politician will wear Shalwar Kameez or wrap her head with a scarf in Pakistan. That is why he/she inserts religious phrases in political diction, that is why he/she always smiles in the pictures and in the end that is why he/she gets away with making a lot of untrue and unrealistic claims. The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com Published in Daily Times, July 23rd 2018.