Irresolute politics

Plenty, according to Dr Arthur B Markman, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. His research, including one involving Lego pieces, observed the processes that people use to choose among a set of alternatives and how people see things to be similar to each other.

Dr Markman and his colleague asked a group of people to build Lego models collaboratively in an effort to understand how communicating (in this case about Lego pieces) affects the categories (of Lego pieces) that are formed.

One participant had instructions for the Lego model and one had the pieces, but neither had access to the other. The two had to rely on each other's discussions to create the Lego model.

The study found that communication did promote consistency between individuals and people who built the Lego models without communicating had low agreements between their sorts. The act of communication influenced the people to categorise the Lego models similarly.

Dr Markman's observations were the focal point in an article written and published by the University of Texas at Austin before the 2004 US presidential election. When put in political milieu, Dr Markman's conclusions resulted in interesting upshots.

The article observed that in order to choose between the candidates for president, people need to be able to compare the candidates. They look to the candidates to talk about similar issues, to allow them to compare the candidates. When the candidates are not talking to each other, they are keeping their issues separate.

This article attempts to explore, based on Dr. Markman's observations, what is going on inside the heads of the 53% "undecided" voters after the brilliant Article Election 2007: The New Arithmetic (DS, Oct 06) by Mr Nazim Kamran Choudhury.

In Bangladesh, incongruity between the parties has been the orthodoxy in the political scenario. Further, political orientation of a section is based generally not on ideology but on predilection, which may be historical, fiscal or hereditary. The political disparity makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the 'undecided' voter to understand, evaluate and compare the parties on equal footing.

For a voter who knows whom he or she would vote for, the element of choice is not a real issue. But for the dubious elector, inadequate and inane information creates a real barrier for choosing candidates. "From a psychological perspective, it is very hard for them to compare candidates," the University of Texas article observes.

Dr Markman noted that if the candidates actually engaged in a discussion, one of the things they would be forced to do by the end is to find issues to differ on. This, however, does not mean that the discussing parties will agree on the issues. Despite this, from the standpoint of the "undecided" voter, the advantage of access to such information is astronomical. "It means that they [the candidates] will talk about their positions using language and framing that allows for comparison," the University of Texas article observes.

The recent "dialogue" between BNP and AL on reform of caretaker government and election commission has been insidious. We all are eagerly hoping that something conducive will come out of these sessions. But whether or not the parties reach a consensus, the public should know what is on the table for discussion. Such information in the public domain would help the "undecided" voters to compare, contrast, and choose.

Dr Markman observed that when people choose between two alternatives, like between two colleges, some of the available information is comparable between the options and some is non-comparable. When comparing colleges, the academic reputation of both colleges may be known, while the quality of teaching may only be known for one college. According to him recent research has shown that people use more comparable than non-comparable information in decision making.

This observation is imperious in the context of Mr Choudhury's article. The analysis posed by him is succinct and clear and more importantly based on facts. It is available to the people to judge and decide. It is comparative and decisive. Furthermore, the analysis of Mr Choudhury confirms, more or less, all the other polling information that has been compiled.

From the standpoint of the "undecided" voters, Mr Choudhury's analysis, like the academic reputation of both colleges in Dr Markman's example, is accessible and comparable information. The purported "dialogue" between BNP and AL behind closed doors, on the other hand, like the quality of teaching of one of the colleges, is impenetrable and non-comparable information. Therefore, to the "undecided" voters, any inaccessible and non-comparative information regarding the political parties or its candidates would be less favourable than Mr Choudhury's analysis.

Research has shown that when people make a judgment about a topic on which they are not expert, they will seek an anchor, such as a poll number or data, and then adjust their belief to fit that anchor. Currently BNP and AL are not revealing to the nation what they are hammering on behind closed doors.

Without the curtain being lifted, the psychology of human judgment, as evidenced by Dr Markman, suggests that the "undecided" voters would have to opt for immediately available comparative information in their decision making process. To this end, I believe, Mr. Choudhury's analysis would act as an anchor for the "undecided" voters.

In election campaigns, the information is provided by people who have a vested interest in the eventual outcome. Amid a Niagara of information and plenty of spin offs, the ambivalent electorate has a mounting task in their hands. Surely, this is no child's play. Let us hope that they will use their judgment prudently when they enter the ballot room in 2007.

The author is a Barrister at Law. The author has relied heavily on and acknowledges the article titled: "The Politics of Indecision" written and published by the University of Texas at Austin before the 2004 US presidential election.