Hats off to Delhi. People of India proved in no uncertain terms that they do not follow politicians and parties blindly. Policies matter. This is democracy at its best. The opposing political parties and supporters of different hues had used the card of abrogation of Article 370, Ram Mandir, Shaheen Bagh, Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Triple Talaq Act to influence voters voting decision. India Today-Axis My India exit poll showed only 2% recalled these decisions of BJP while making their decision as to whom to vote for.
The voting decision went beyond hate and was based on a mature reasoning reflecting upon the priorities BJP fell short on addressing. The exit poll survey shows roughly 40% voters have shifted from the BJP to the AAP. ‘Those who did not favor the Bharatiya Janata Party was mainly because of the party “not focusing on the development work”. At least 42 per cent said they didn’t vote for the BJP for lack of development.’ (India Today, February 8, 2020)
The result in Delhi is driven by an intelligent voter who looks beyond political jargons, political war games and wasting energies on sub-text. The fruits of democracy can only be enjoyed if the voter is intelligent. Failing which the outcome of an election can be a government of the mediocre.
In Pakistan, the general awareness on political issues of the public is dismally low. Whatever they do know, they do a poor job of analyzing. This has a lot to do with the inadequacy of our mainstream media. Too many TV channels, too many talk shows hosted by those who are either themselves not well educated on the subject, and/or create a drama for the sake of ratings, and/or mislead by an angle to the topic and/or partial facts and many other myriad reasons has led to more confusion that education of the people. A role that was once a pivotal one for the media.
What is to be appreciated is that ‘retrospective voting’ must have better knowledge of issues instead of a superficial understanding. Without this, the voter cannot know the difference between issues on which the voters were misled and/or issues caused by these ‘leaders’ and issues that were beyond the control of the political dispensation
The unawareness of the political ground realities goes as deep as it is spread out widely. This exists in spite of education. In spite of technological ability to reach out for information. Most, use and edit this information in an extremely biased light to suit the existing opinion not to learn from it or analyze and question their present political opinion recipe. They act like most ‘researchers’ who decide upon the conclusion first and then try to (and do so effectively) fit in blocks of edited information to their pre-determined conclusion. If the objective is to seek truth, this exercise is self-defeating. However, if it is to ignore uncomfortable facts and strengthen their own notions, it is a beautiful approach.
The approach of “Information Shortcuts” by the Pakistani voters, has hurt the country badly over the years. Ilya Somin has beautifully explained the concept in his research paper ‘Democracy & Political Ignorance’. (Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University) ‘Information shortcuts are small bits of information that we can use as proxies for larger bodies of knowledge of which we may be ignorant.’ Since the voters do not have to really understand policies and their implementation, and they only need to know if things are doing poorly or well. Armed with their ‘information shortcut’ they can make a decision that has no bearing to truth. Or at best, partial bearing to truth. So voters by using ‘Information Shortcuts’ can reward a post holder by electing him yet again and/or throwing him out by voting for another incumbent.
What is to be appreciated is that ‘retrospective voting’ must have better knowledge of issues instead of a superficial understanding. Without this, the voter cannot know the difference between issues on which the voters were misled and/or issues caused by these ‘leaders’ and issues that were beyond the control of the political dispensation. Blaming them for results of force majeure is ignorance whereas acts falling within first category are not. To share one example only. Pre-election PTI promises of ensuring funds taken away wrongfully from Pakistan by allegedly dishonest leaders was a popular slogan that won PTI accolades and support. In using this ‘information shortcut’ the voter remained uneducated to the two basic principles that apply to a situation where more than one country is involved: 1) If money is indeed wrongfully taken out from Pakistan and invested in another country did the person alleged break a law of the land where investing and 2) Does there exist a bilateral treaty/agreement between Pakistan and the country where allegedly stolen funds are invested to make the refund possible?
If voters follow the ‘opinion leaders’ their ‘knowledge’ may not be based on sound information either.
Voting is a fundamental right of every citizen of every nation. However, the voter must understand he has to live with the consequences of his voting decision. If he chooses not to vote for the main parties but support a third party- like Republican Party replacing the Whigs in the 19th Century and PTI over shadowing both PPP and PML N with a myriad of other smaller parties, the outcome can be both negative or positive. Or mixed. Whatever the outcome, the voters must live with the consequences.
Pakistan voters need to take a leaf out of the book from Delhi and go beyond using ‘Information Shortcuts’ for better results by people they elect.
The writer is a lawyer, academic and political analyst. She has authored a book titled ‘A Comparative Analysis of Media & Media Laws