Corrigan: "Vibes Politics": Why SA voters keep choosing charm over competence - Biznews

Terence Corrigan

“So… it’s voter hubris that is the problem? Not that the DA has chosen their most unlikeable candidate for the job?” I came across this grumpy little gem on Facebook a while ago.

This was a response to a post about voter apathy. The post’s creator – whom I know vaguely – is an ardent DA supporter and serious Helen Zille cheerleader, and was remonstrating against suburbanites who failed to turn out.

I don’t know the responder from Adam, though I’ve seen him direct plenty of vitriol at the DA and at Zille personally. For good measure, he added, “You DA guys are so lost up your own arses…”

From what I can establish, he is a well-heeled suburbanite himself, and as it turns out, his animus towards the DA doesn’t seem to follow an affection for its opponents, nor any satisfaction with the management of Johannesburg. Rather, if his online commentary is to be believed, he just can’t bring himself to cast a vote for the DA on essentially aesthetic grounds.

Over time, I’ve seen this again and again. It’s not (fundamentally) the policy positions, or the sense of competence that is the problem. It’s not that there is any confidence in the ANC as the long-term governance incumbent. This is about a personal, visceral reaction. 

It’s about political choices made on the base of emotional and symbolic impulses. While “likeability” or “relatability” may have little to do with competence for office or the capacity to produce results, they are important factors in democratic politics. In democracies, after all, leaders need to compete for the endorsement of the people. Call it Vibes Politics.

South Africa has a long history with Vibes Politics. One of the most obvious examples of this was the elevation of Jacob Zuma to the presidency. We tend to forget this now, but after the aloof and condescending presidency of Thabo Mbeki, Zuma had a cult-like following. By the time he took up the Presidential suite in the Union Buildings, he had already weathered several scandals that raised cogent questions about his fitness for office. It didn’t seem to matter.

Nor, by the way, was this view of him – Zuma the person – confined to his supporters. A good part of the commentariat reconciled themselves to his presidency. And I’ve met a number of people who’ve interacted with him, and I have yet to encounter anyone with a negative word about his personal behaviour. Helen Zille referred to him as the most charming man she’d ever met.

Jovial and outgoing

Zuma’s jovial and outgoing character was an asset for attaining office, and for maintaining a support base. Even today, he retains a substantial following. But it meant little for the functionality of the state. We’ll be dealing with this for a generation.

We can hold this against Zuma, sure, but it should not go without comment that large parts of South Africa’s electorate were willing to endorse him:  the government and party he headed, and by implication the state he presided over. A large part of South Africa’s voting public owns this.

I thought of that while looking at another Facebook comment (different person). Indignant at rising xenophobia, the writer was making an impassioned appeal, saying that foreigners were not the cause of South Africa’s problems. Look at the state of governance, economic retardation and the shysters trying to misdirect public frustration. “We need new leadership.”

Not an original thought, that. Not an incorrect one either, I’d say. Well, we regularly have a chance to find new leadership. As a country, we hold credible elections and can change governments through them. This is not the case in many peer countries.

But it’s an avenue that South Africa’s voting public has not always been eager to take. The state of the country and the squandering of its post-apartheid promise have been a longstanding source of frustration. The response for most of the period has been to want new leadership, but with the same party.  ‘Zuma would provide a better, more connected ANC than Mbeki; Ramaphosa, a more honest ANC’. Change the personalities, but keep the essential political structure in place.

Vibes weren’t enough

Same approach, different vibes. Vibes weren’t enough, and it hasn’t worked out well for the country – or, for that matter, for the ANC as a party.

Things have changed in this respect, undeniably, and thankfully. Commitment to the ANC at least is weakening, and increasing numbers of voters are open to alternatives.

But not all. South African politics retains a bloc among its voters that demands perfection in its choice of public representatives. Competence is unsatisfactory, and policy insufficient as a motivator. The aesthetic needs to work as well.

It’s not a uniquely South African problem, nor is it in any sense illegitimate. People in a free society have the sovereign right to choose their representatives on whatever bases suit them. Whether this is a sensible approach is a different matter.

Governance in South Africa and in South Africa’s municipalities is broken. From its global diplomacy to management of road maintenance in small dorps, South Africa’s people are carrying the costs of this decline, and these costs have an impact on their daily lives and on their children’s prospects. Perhaps those well-heeled suburbanites can buy some immunity from government incompetence or feel that a sense of global connectedness gives their children the escape-hatch of emigration. But it seems to me that this is at best a dereliction of the responsibilities of citizenship.

Churlish

I’d add that looking for a perfection in one’s political candidate is churlish. That is probably vanishingly rare at the best of times, and in an imperfect world it is necessary to choose from imperfect options as they exist, with an eye on the issues confronting society as it exists. Likeability is a luxury demand when the water supply is breaking down. Choice is a responsibility of citizenship, and not always an easy one.

This is a bigger and more fundamental issue than Helen Zille or the DA. I’d add that not only can voters’ choices (call it hubris if you want) be held responsible for political outcomes, but they should. This tells us that democracy is functioning, warts and all. Democracy places awesome power in the hands of ordinary people. It’s a power that can be used for good or ill. “The people” are neither inherently wise nor virtuous, and democracy is no infallible safeguard against any of the potential failings or abuses of office.

But for all this, democracy is something to be celebrated. It places a powerful tool for accountability and correction in the hands of ordinary people. That is if they choose to use it, to acknowledge poor or mistaken choices, and are willing to change course, however imperfect the new alternatives may be.

Of course, voters can demand purity, sniff at the dearth of “likeability”, or condemn the theatrics of a candidate’s campaign, and orient their votes (or a refusal to vote) accordingly. For myself, I would say that this itself says something about heads being lost up arses.

Terence Corrigan is the Project and Publications Manager at the Institute of Race Relations (IRR)

https://www.biznews.com/rational-perspective/corrigan-sa-voters-choosing-charm-over-competence