What are we thinking (if we are thinking) when we vote?

“You miss too much these days if you stop to think” — Bono of U2

I scowled as I watched Eric, a bright 16-year-old Chinese student. He liked to sit in the back of the class. He was blissfully ignorant of the fact that I could see him playing with his PlayStation behind his desk. I confiscated it yet again. I reminded him that I was pleasantly surprised by his exam paper. He got 75% without trying. If he put in the effort, he would crack 95%. His reply? “Please don’t tell teacher Catherine,” the Chinese head of department who could make his life unpleasant. I warned him that if I caught him playing with the PlayStation again, I would tell her.

Eric is so typically one of us, so human. Motivated by fear (Teacher Catherine) to just toe the line, nothing more, happy to just coast along, not thinking about where he is at or where he is going.

I sometimes wonder if there is anything wrong with that. Anxiety is pretty much the result of thinking too much about where one is going.

The same when it comes to voting, which for South Africans is very soon, and the most vital elections we have ever had as a fledgling democracy, given the global crisis and the policies carried out by the SA government in the last decade. On this, Tony Leon said in his magnificent farewell address to parliament: “We created laws and regulations that shut down job creation and chased skills out of key government departments. In so doing we created a serious crisis in health, education, and energy, hurting those in greatest need.” Yet the collective wisdom, the thinking of the people, voted that leadership into power.

So what are we thinking, if we are thinking at all, when we vote? Do people sincerely think they are making a wise decision when they resolutely or irresolutely put that cross next to that party?

For many years I was both salesman and a sales manager. In training sales staff I could not emphasise enough that people buy based on emotions, and perhaps later justify the purchase with logic. Very little rationality goes into purchasing decisions, though people may delude themselves into thinking they are. Our company designed, sold and ran motivational training programmes for children. Salespeople were trained to ask parents questions like, “How would you feel if your son became more confident and stood up for himself? What would it mean for your son? What would the boosting of his self esteem do for his future?” And so forth. These questions often elicited an emotive, positive buying response.

The same applies to voting. Here in Shanghai, during the recent US presidential campaign, I discussed with several Americans the psychology of voting. I submitted my view that voting decisions are emotive, not rational. Their responses to me were all emotive, sometimes disguised by rationale. Eventually they had to concede that the reason why America has only had tall, white men as president is because, well … the general voting populace only wanted to see tall white men in office. Obama is a fascinating example of an exception proving the rule which I explored a bit here. In South Africa, most black people who turn out will vote for a black face. Most white people will vote for a white face. This is not a criticism. This is not racism. It’s just how we are, deeply emotive people, needing to trust the face we see. No amount of denial is going to change that. The very language of politicians, when they are trying to sway people to their cause, is emotive.

So it is interesting that we worship rationalism, logic, but do not use it when making important decisions like voting people into office. We deny what we are, impulsive, emotive, with a dark side barely restrained, if at all, in the Conradian sense of restraint. We praise what we are not.

George Bush, in giving his farewell speech on leaving office, gave us yet another one of his Bushisms. When the US under his government successfully invaded and occupied Iraq, he stood on an aircraft carrier under a banner saying “mission accomplished”. So naïve. The war had barely begun. “It sent the wrong message,” Bush said in his farewell, offering us one of the most excruciating but hilarious truisms I have ever read. This was followed by the Bushism: “We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless it conveyed a different message.” That vague noun “something” connected to the strange particle “it” in the last sentence. What was he trying to say or do differently? One assumes from the context that he is referring to the machismo banner on the aircraft carrier, which makes me think of bullies, but the context goes a lot deeper than that. The “something differently” refers to countless lost lives, a stupid war (do we get intelligent wars?) and nothing of any value “accomplished”.

But Bush’s latest little Bushism does convey a profound truth about communication and the psychology of buying a product, be it a car, clothing or voting for a president. The associations that products make often have nothing to do with the products themselves; they convey something different to what the products are. Yet because of that false association (emphasis on false), people buy, people vote. Sports heroes are used to promote various foods and beer, even insurance and assurance products. They and the products have nothing or little in common. It just makes the product look great.

“Coke adds life”. It has never added life. It promotes diabetes, though. “Impossible is nothing” declares the catchy adidas slogan, and I personally love that attitude. But a lot of things are impossible.

Thus … Jacob Zuma remains a heroic icon for many black people, and no amount of rationalising is ever going to change that.

Product advertising and political voting have such uncanny similarities. Once people have become loyal to a product or a personage, it is very difficult to get them to switch. For example, I will only buy Nokia mobiles. I have no rational reason for that. It is simply the need to be loyal to something, and I trust the product, I suppose.

Barack Obama is an emotive icon for many people, including, most importantly, the marginalised and the oppressed, particularly in his home country and as we have seen in his visits as a senator to Kenya and other countries in Africa. His face gladdens hearts, gets people to hope again. God, I hope he delivers. With the naïve emphasis in that last sentence, or fervent prayer, and given that so many worldwide are looking at one person to change so much that needs to be changed in the world, I will finish off with a brief look at politics in the People’s Republic of China, where I live, which is ultimately a one-party state.

In China there is only one party and the common people have no say over who is in power. (I am aware there are nine other token parties, but they probably have less influence than the Tricameral parties in the PW Botha era of apartheid.) There are powerful balances and checks in decision-making, for example, in the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China. Ever since the massive changes initiated by Deng Xiaoping, the country is coming back from destitution and going from strength to strength.

Right now as I write this article in my apartment on the 22^nd floor in downtown Shanghai, I can hear the distant noise of jackhammers and drills. So many buildings are being pulled down and new, smart ones being erected. Many jobs have been created in the building and related trades as Shanghai gets ready to host the massive World Expo 2010. There has been an unemployment crisis in China in the global meltdown, but the leaders of this country are doing something about it.

So, maybe the future of a country should only be the result of the voting among the precious few, such as China’s communist party and its related politburo, where only roughly five to nine people greenlight all major decisions in China, including the leaders.

Hell, I never thought I would ever write that last sentence in my life. Anathema.

But I am still going to vote in a few weeks time. I like buying on emotion. Everything from comfort foods to the flowers and card I had better get for my wife, the Chook, by Valentine’s Day. Otherwise there is going to be a bit more emotion than what I need in our home on lovers’ day.