Why Slaa Could Win the Presidential Election
This is a sequel to my article on ‘Election Campaigns and Politics of Performance.’ Therein we looked at the power of performance. Now we look at the power of psychology and personality.
It is quite clear now that Dr. Wilbroad Slaa’s decision to run as a presidential candidate has tilted the balance of power. Now the debate is no longer whether the ruling party’s candidate will get a landslide victory as in the previous election. Rather, it is how much of that victory will be cut.
To the more optimistic, who draws inspiration from the rise of Barack Obama to the presidency of the US against all odds, everything is possible. However, to the more cautious who have not forgotten how the then celebrated Augustine Mrema did not become the president in 1995, this is a delusional hype. ‘Yes Slaa Can’ is thus pitted against ‘No Slaa Cannot’ become president now.
Frankly, I am one of those sceptics and cynics who think it needs nothing short of a miracle for Slaa to win. But there is something in this election that is so different from previous elections. It is coming at a time when for a combination of reasons many more people have registered to vote.
So, it is difficult to have a situation, like the one we had in 1995, when one opposition party’s candidate blamed the massive crowds who attended his campaigns for his loss. Why? Simply because they could not and did not vote as they were not registered. This time the crowd matters.
As I said during the registration period, a number of people – including many youth – have registered not necessarily because they want(ed) to vote. All they – indeed we – (need)ed was a card that will help one, particularly the unemployed, have a sense of identification when one has to open a bank account or, as a colleague alerted me recently, to register a sim card. It is in this regard that at 19,670, 631 – the official figure in the National Electoral Commission’s (NEC) permanent voter’s register – nearly half of the population is eligible to vote in this election.
Now, regardless of political parties’ weaknesses in data storage and processing, it is a well known statistical fact that, in terms of membership, the ruling party can hardly boast a quarter of that number. This implies that many of those who have registered, including myself, are the swing voters. We can swing either way in terms of the personality and policy of the candidate.
This is what happened in 2005 when the ruling party fielded a very attractive personality. It is now happening as one of the opposition parties has fielded a very influential personality. But that, in itself, is not enough to make Slaa overcome the strength or experience of the ruling party electioneering machinery. It is another factor, what I call a reverse bystander effect that can do.
In Social Psychology a ‘bystander effect’ happens when a number of people – the bystanders – in an emergency situation increases. This cause a diffusion of responsibility as they end up thinking that someone else will intervene. In such cases an emergency can simply pass on unattended to.
One can hardly claim it to be treason to state that in a way the country has been in a ‘state of emergency’. The war on grand corruption is too overwhelming. Its attendant impoverishment is unbearable. The voters are desperate for change. Slaa is indeed using this as his policy ace card.
What I am observing so far is some sort of a reverse bystander – or maybe I should call it ‘byvoter’ – effect. Increasingly people are deciding to vote for Slaa since they think most people will vote for the ruling party’s candidate anyway. Coupled with the massive voters’ awareness and election campaigns that are going on, it is possible that Slaa will win the presidential seat.
But, again, it is also quite possible that Slaa will be a ‘lame’ president since it is very likely that the ruling party will have majority seats in the parliament. Now I am not very sure how the Constitution is well prepared to deal with such likelihood. One thing I am very sure of: Such an eventuality will open a new chapter in Tanzania’s quest for democratic constitutional reform.
So Slaa may not become president. Yet his candidature is democratizing us. Either way he wins.
