Asymbol was all that was needed. We remember that once upon a time politics in this country rested on the power of a symbol. It was either the atha (hand) or the aliya (elephant) Election symbols were invented because it was assumed that the semi-literate or illiterate would associate the party and what it represented with an image. Eventually, it seemed the symbol became more powerful than what it represented.
There were lengthy debates when coalitions eventually wanted to ditch the party symbol of the predominant partner in the coalition. There was much grief when the People’s Alliance ditched the ‘hand’ symbol of the SLFP to contest under the mark of the ‘chair’ in 1994. But the experiment proved to be successful, and it took this single highly contentious move for people to realise that voters were neither semi-literate or illiterate.
But yet, political sophistication has not overcome core voting habits and the right-wing, left-wing dynamics. This is even when the right and the left have virtually merged and there is nothing left in terms of a substantial divide in terms of political praxis between the two. But yet, people define themselves as right-leaning and left-leaning in most polities around the world, and as liberal or conservative almost by way of extension.
PAUSED
The right-wing unmistakably coalesces around one leader or two at the most, and the left is also generally a monolith barring exceptional circumstances. If that is the case, what is the need for party manifestos that have replaced the symbols as the essential apparatus for campaigning and electioneering?
People in other words seem to care less what their leaders stand for as long as the latter are positioned on their side of the political divide. If that is the case, do manifestos matter at all? Do policy positions carry any weight whatsoever, if much of the electorate have decided before any candidate was nominated, who they would vote for?
Policy positions and public statements that used to be collated and spelled out as a party-platform have gone out of fashion, and been replaced by image. Image is all powerful, and the high stakes game is to convince the undecided voters who care about image more than the hardcore party supporters.
The latter care less about candidate or symbol or manifesto, as long as there is somebody carrying forward the interests of their party, and their political ideology so called, that has been passed down literally for generations. That’s right. An individual’s preferred political ideology is for the most part inherited.
People vote for the right-wing parties because their parents and grandparents have done so before them. So it is with left-wing or so called progressive voters in the main. Politicians have cottoned on to this reality that though the symbol per se is not important anymore, it’s what’s symbolic in what they stand for that is important to most people.
Ideology itself is of symbolic value to most people who vote. They have not paused to consider what their party’s political platform entails, because that’s by and large unimportant to them. They vote for their ‘man’ and sometimes for their woman, though it’s rarely the latter, when, of course, some folk may ditch all allegiances and vote on gender lines. But such disruption is rare. For the most part, manifestos have lost their value.
It’s the floating voter that the candidates aim for, and these are folk that are increasingly consumed by the herd mentality. They do not seek manifestos or display any real interest in policy positions. They are more interested in image, and such notions of image are governed by the dictates of the season’s fad.
The season’s fad? That can be determined by social media, media in general and word of mouth. But image is often created by spin-doctors, who are experts at determining the zeitgeist.
Small wonder then, that manifestos are out of fashion. People are uninterested in what political parties want to do, and they are least interested in the specifics. On the other hand, what they want to avoid is important to them. They are sick of the same old sometimes, and want brave new alternatives. Who can blame them, you could ask?
That’s a valid argument, that people have a legitimate reason to want to experiment. But, that sounds good until it occurs to most political-watchers that the people may have experimented in previous elections as well, sometimes with disastrous consequences.
Voter proclivity to experiment means that politicians have good reason to believe that they could win with spin, and replace reality with a snapshot or a fleeting image. It’s why it is often said that people vote subject to the ‘beer test.” In countries such as ours we could simply call it the coffee-test. It’s important to them who among the contenders they would want to have a cup of coffee with, or a cup of tea with. No, of course, they don’t consciously set out to find the most convivial coffee-drinker among the candidates.
Celebrity
But it becomes a subconscious call. The important issue is of people seeking a celebrity to fawn over, or alternatively seeking novelty, and that’s antithetical to rational decision making. It is why manifestos have become unimportant. The novelty wears off with manifestos and details, and the person who fills the most column inches on a leaflet with policy positions and pledges about what they will do when in power, are often those who come across as boring and those who folks would “rather not have a beer with.”
As political strategy, none of the parties in the running in this year’s Presidential election has put forward a substantial set of policies. The NPP has been considered particularly remiss in this regard, because the JVP-led coalition would be new in power if it succeeds. A set of people who claim that the contrast is their biggest advantage — contrast with conventional political parties — should be able to substantiate that constraint with a set of policies that impart an idea about what the party is about when the novelty wears off.
RESPECTABLE
But that’s the JVPs problem as well. People at least in some quarters see them as the alternative, and in that sense, they are, of course, the flavour of the season. Novelty is their strong suit. They wouldn’t want to have that novelty diluted without a strong reason, and having to come up with a respectable party-platform may not be a strong enough reason.
On the other hand, though people may not read a party manifesto and detail and be edified by the same, some may consider a party with a detailed written manifesto to be more responsible and trustworthy.
They may want the manifesto to be read by others so that others could tell them, this or that party means business. In that sense, a manifesto is more a symbol, and think how badly symbols were considered by Sri Lankans. In this age of image over fact, and bluster over substance, a symbol is of no value, and a manifesto these days is nothing more than a more respectable symbol.
Having said that, it ought to be noted that people may dislike parties that don’t have manifestos or hard positions and are also proud about it. Being vague and non-specific and appealing to voters in seductive rhetoric may be useful, but disrespecting the voter by saying straight out “We don’t have a position” or “we will make our position known after elections,” will likely be punished by voters.
It’s part of the image game, to put it succinctly. People may not want a manifesto to decide on whom to vote for, and they may not pay attention if there is one. But woe unto a party that doesn’t have one. That would be unforgivable. Voters want to be taken seriously, even though that seriousness may well be superficial and meaningless, in real terms.
