In public sector economics, it is crucial to fathom how people ground their analytical framework when making decisions in many aspects, including in elections. Inasmuch as there are some junctures whereat economics needs to derive theories from other disciplines so as to help us understand multifaceted circumstances regarding particular issues, it is sagacious for economics to seek help from the discipline of psychology when it comes to the context of elections.
However, how do economics and psychology intertwine in politics, particularly in explaining the rise of a rookie in the election race? How will this combination affect the common good of the general public?
In order to start the study, we better cite a concept posited by economist Bryan Caplan named rational irrationality. He propounded that in typical large democracies, each individual voter has a very low probability of determining the outcome of an election and which policies to implement, thus making the cost of holding a belief (regardless of whether it is erroneous) is low.[1]
Therefore, people tend to choose the option(s) whereby they feel benefited and represented, be it by its values, views, alignment with existing beliefs or portrayal they would like to display publicly, or admiration they have on person/group, regardless of whether it is what is apt for the common good.
In the presence of systemic bias , when the number of biased belief holders is substantial, the total cost to be borne by democracy is significant and may go against the common good of the general public.
There is also the public choice theory, which assumes (to some extent) that politicians act at the expense of the public and yield political outcomes that contradict public preferences. It is worth noting that some parties have voiced their disagreement towards this assumption; however, this theory seems to be valid in developing countries.[2]
This behavior shown by politicians is, as per rent-seeking theory, motivated by the wants to increase one's wealth without producing more wealth to the society, leading to reduced economic efficiency. In the election context, it is analogous to gaining votes by using any means without substantial effort to fulfill their pledges after assuming the post.
Theories in Praxis: The Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono Way
If there is a politician who best explains the theories, that might be Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono. Agus, also known as AHY, is a former military major as well as the son of Indonesia's sixth president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. In 2016, he decided to retire from the military and run for Jakarta gubernatorial office, much to the public's surprise.
Despite not having assumed any public office previously, he still managed to reap 17% of the popular vote, surpassing (both in nominal vote and percentage) the results secured by more established politicians, such as Alex Noerdin and Hidayat Nur Wahid, in the 2012 Jakarta gubernatorial election.[3]
Post-election, he also topped the surveys made to see public preference on VP candidates and was favored to be the running mate for opposition leader Prabowo Subianto. Even though the designated VP turned out to not be him, his exceptional surge to the Indonesia's political grandeur may as well raise an interesting question, "How did he do it?"
Agus and his team seem to make use of the theories to attract public attention really well. One of the most noticeable is the implementation of a psychological aspect called mere exposure effect, wherein continuous exposure to a stimulant increases our familiarity to and penchant for it, thereby increasing public's preference on it.
A primary example is their 'exploitation' of a part of Indonesians who still depict good-looking and dashing individual as an ideal leader. They set up billboards of him displaying comity gesture which really shows his chivalrous image.
Meanwhile, his political compatriots on social media have helped him a lot in framing himself. They continuously communicate Agus' fortes by bringing his accomplishments during military days into view, showing the results of various surveys in which he often led, and so forth.
In addition, they also deploy a concept named transference, whereby someone unconsciously redirects his/her feelings from one person to another when the latter's character resembles that of the former.
In this case, AHY's father's background as an ex-president with numerous achievements is transferred to him, thereby making the capabilities and qualities of his father seemingly become his too. In short, those being fond of his father will redirect their admiration towards him, giving him some sort of mileage out of his father's renowned reputation.
He also utilises people's pessimistic bias (wherein people tend to exaggerate current economic condition) by criticising economic policies undertaken by the reigning government, including the low level of purchasing power, the rise of electricity base tariff rate, low employment, and the influx of foreign workers.
In the meantime, his team, especially in social media, tries to portray the past as felicitous and present time as promiscuous by echoing President Susilo Bambang's attainments during his presidency and contrasting those with the current situation so as to 'reminisce' that good time, thus creating the urge to change the circumstances among his proponents.
By doing this, he is not so much really criticising the policies as trying to position himself with those who believe that economy is doing poorly with hope to gain their supports whilst also strengthening the supports from his established proponents. Be that as it may, this sort of approach has inherent problems and implications worth concerning.
Concerns and challenges of this sort of approach
According to Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Voss (2007), people as human beings already have values that root firmly and tend to cling to it throughout their life.[4]
It is known as belief perseverance, a view stating that people maintain their belief despite new information coming in from outside contradicting their judgment. It means that people generally tend to stay put when it comes to changing values or even get more certain on their beliefs when challenged. It is likely that Agus' case is no exception.
Although the tack seems effectual when applied to his potential supporters, the same cannot be said to his political counterparts because of the human nature itself to refute any contradictions towards their standpoint. This may ignite problem when the number of his opposites exceeds that of his proponents, owing to the fact that he is regarded by his political counterparts as a hassle, thereby potentially leaving him bereft of additional support in the future.
Even if Agus manages to impress his potential supporters, there are no guarantees that they will support him automatically. He may impress them on a modicum of variables, but then not on others. Citing DISC theory, stating that each individual has their order of behavior style; we often base our like or dislike on someone in the proximity of their behavior style to that of ours.
We likely have better communication and understanding with those who behave in the manner we prefer rather than with those who lack thereof.[5] On that account, a staunch opposition supporter may agree on ideas Agus comes up with, but thanks to their behavior style difference, that person does not regard him as an ideal epitome to support, or at least to admire. Howsoever, with all potentials he has, success appears to be within his grasp.
Having said all this, what can be the biggest concern and worth ruminating on is how applying such means may prove to be destructive. It was mentioned at the beginning of this writing that although such means may win someone an election, the general public often becomes the victim of politicians' misdeed.
We have also witnessed how several politicians who were framed and campaigned as good-looking, pious, and other sorts of framings ended up in jail and left their administrative regions lagging behind in terms of development. This sort of approach also, in fact, delegitimize ourselves from overseeing and criticising the constitutional government by virtue of our choice that is not based on meritocracy principle.
Without practicing substansive campaign, it is safe to say that the elected leaders will have no moral obligation to undertake deliberate and calculated programmes in the interest of the people they constitute. How is that cogent to slam politicians we voted for in elections when they misdeal if we voted for them just because of their physical appearances or other trivial factors? People may choose options that cost them low, but without wise and careful considerations, the cost we have to bear at the end of the day is going to burden society as a whole unit.
By Yoshua Caesar Justinus  | Economics 2017 | Staff of Kanopi Studies Division 2018
References
[1] The Myth of the Rational Voter Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies  (https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa594.pdf)
[2] The Limits of Public Choice Theory (https://jacobitemag.com/2017/05/30/the-limits-of-public-choice-theory/)
[3] Data Pilgub DKI dari Masa ke Masa, Diusung Banyak Parpol Belum Tentu Menang (https://news.detik.com/berita/d-3273110/data-pilgub-dki-dari-masa-ke-masa-diusung-banyak-parpol-belum-tentu-menang)
[4] Baumeister, R. F.; et al., eds. (2007). Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 109–110.)
[5] I Just Don’t Like You; The Story of Behavioral Differences (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/understand-other-people/201401/i-just-don-t-you)
