The announcement calling the Presidential Election (PE) has been carried out in a certain contentious context. The row over Supreme Court (SC) judgments and the political fallout thereof has created a parallel narrative accompanying the main one, which is of course focused on the Presidential contest and its possible outcomes.
This background chatter is overshadowing the importance of what is undoubtedly one of the most crucial contests for power in recent times, that would likely have long-term repercussions. Sri Lankans are coming out of an economic meltdown, and a recovery which has become a contentious issue in the Presidential contest.
People are rather anxious about the impending political jousts and the results that would be turned in eventually. Their futures, and the quality of their lives depend on it. But it is also one election in which the voters feel extremely sobered. The last time they voted for a President in 2019, they gave the winner a stirring mandate. But most voters bitterly regretted that decision, with the President they chose reposing great faith in, soon turning out to be a failure on multiple fronts.
As a result, the basis on which a large number of people would cast their ballots this time around would probably be very different from what obtained in 2019. There would be far more voters who would abandon their allegiance to the conventional political parties, or so we are told. It would mean that the so called ‘floating’ vote would be a much larger slice of the total vote cast, when all the votes are counted.
MELTDOWN
But if there are more people that are in effect undecided, what would be the clincher that makes them cast their vote in a certain way, come election day in September? It seems that there are several dynamics operating each time there is a major, decisive contest such as a Presidential Election.
These dynamics, among other things, involve the basis on which people choose their preferred candidates. They may, of course, obviously vary from election to election, and that is to be expected. But this time around, these considerations are more varied and interesting perhaps than usual.
So, what indeed are the particular considerations on which people may be basing their voting preferences in 2024? It is a tough question at the best of times, but is an infinitely more challenging poser this year. Are people for the most past voting because they are fed up of politics, which begs the question, why they are voting at all in that case?
Are they voting because they have been told how to, by their peers, or by their family members and friends and by the media, be it social media or the conventional kind? None of these questions have easy answers, but having said that, there are some central dynamics, if you will, that seem to be pronounced when voter decision-making comes into pay this time around.
One of this could be loosely called the boss dynamic. It is admittedly a word that this writer is coining when he is having to wing it, so to speak, for the purposes of this article. But people who have been around the country and spoken to the average Joe or Kamala on the street, would know what it means.
The boss dynamic is when people feel they want to take charge. This operates in every election cycle, but in this one, it seems particularly more pronounced. People are speaking in very assertive terms. They feel the onus is on them to take charge because the politicians caused the economic meltdown, and all of the resultant shocks to the system.
They feel they have been remiss in their democratic duty to elect the best. They also feel that it is time they showed the politicians who are really in charge.
CONTEXT
It is the boss dynamic that you would experience in full operation when you hear people saying ‘wait until you see the result.’ They say they would show everybody who in effect calls the shots in this country. They seem to be under the delusion that it is themselves. That is just stated in jest. They seem to be convinced rather, that in a democracy, the voter, however seldom he or she votes, calls the tune. Therefore, they say, this time everybody would get a taste of who is king in this country. That is in a nutshell the boss-dynamic.
However, there are those who vote from perhaps a decidedly more conservative place. They do not want to assert themselves, but would rather weigh the pros and cons. Are they the change vs. continuity voters who prefer the latter? Not necessarily. But they are voters who are anxious. You could call this type of voter proclivity anxiety-dynamic.
These voters are not worried about whether they call the shots or not. They perceive their vote as one small contribution towards giving shape to the future contours of governance in the country they call home. They would consider all the available alternatives and vote on the basis of security and stability.
Perhaps, it is rather inconsiderate to locate such voter proclivities within the anxiety bracket. Those who are partial to these types of deep-thinking participants doing their civic duty, would probably call them the ‘responsible voters’, rather than the anxiety-voters. But others would disagree. There are those who say people ought to vote with a future in mind, forgetting the hard realities of the present context.
Another dynamic that operates, could be called the personal-angle. Some folk vote based on what they perceive would be the advantages accruing directly to them or their immediate family. These individuals may have large networks, and direct conduits to those who may end up in power. They would vote if they think there is somebody from these networks in a position of power, who could help them directly by giving them preference when it comes to a job or a State contract.
SLOWDOWN
There are also, in each election cycle, the folk who vote based on considerations of religion, ethnicity, class or caste. In this election cycle, this cohort may probably be the least motivated. Obviously, post-2022, economic considerations took precedence over everything for most voters, making other considerations tangential at best.
It is to be noted, however, that the aforementioned dynamics operate mostly among the so-called floating voters. Those who instead vote on the basis of party colour will continue to do so in blocks. However, it is being argued that this time the block-vote would be reduced in scale, and that most of the traditional block-voters would break with the past and become floating voters, basing their preferences on a careful consideration of the choice of candidates on offer.
The extent of the traditional preference should not be underestimated in this country, though. People have been brought up to believe that their way of life is the best, and that their political choices have always been accurate. These considerations may not necessarily change for a great many voters just because there was an economic implosion. They would rationalise and put the economic woes down to an aberration i.e. unexpected circumstances leading from a global economic slowdown due to Covid-19.
There is the saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Though the floating voter numbers could be greater this time than in the past, it does not necessarily mean that the two-party dynamic would absolutely be displaced. It may happen in the unlikely event, but is certainly not guaranteed.
Usually, the floating voter floats from one major party to the other, from election to election. This time the floating voter may veer towards a third party. These itinerant numbers may likely not be enough to push this third party in front.
It means the two-horse contest would be replayed once more, maybe in a somewhat attenuated form. If anything else happens other than essentially a two party contest, that can be considered an upset.
