Political competition can be highly emotive. People die,
others are mimed; property and businesses are destroyed in the hyped spirit of
finding political heroes. But, is winning an election a clear achievement?
Those in the contest - when they win - rejoice overwhelmingly claiming that the
electorate has confirmed their suitability. And those that lose suffer a sense
of devastated humiliation, rejection and exaggerated unworthiness.
Whereas, these feeling are natural and hard to brush off
from those who participated in the contest, they may be grossly unjustified.
This is because there’re many dynamics that play a role in determining who won
and who lost. This is - even without going into the possibility of manipulations, fouling
of the integrity of the processes and systems; or other malpractice or mischief
that may have occurred.
It’s unfortunate that only few countries make follow-ups on
what informs an electoral victory. And such countries can be identified by the
low emotions they place on results. There is the knowing that the results can provide
much more information and insights than merely isolating ‘winners’ from ‘losers’.
Of course attaining such appreciation comes with higher
civilisation of a society. It works when leaders understand their purpose is to
serve and therefore it’s not about them but rather the voters. Consequently,
investment in data collection and analysis into people’s choices is not spared.
Political analysis is deeper with aims of unearthing new concerns affecting
people.
The campaign trail isn’t just about those seeking office
telling voters what they’ll do, but also the opportunity for them to listen to
what they want. And most importantly knowing leadership is exercised in
everyday civic responsibilities and not just in elected positions.
Whereas different societies and countries have unique
critical determinants that strongly influence their choice patterns in Kenya
three parameters that encompass the person, connections and success; stand out
as predominant impacts. These parameters are drawn from historical elections’
outcomes and reinforced by opinion pollsters and media story-framings.
However, the voters are still analytical and they break down
these factors further as they evaluate each new entrant in the game. They end
up weighing the candidates against 14 sub factors as depicted below.
But going with empirical evidence obtained in the results,
it turns out the ultimate decision is simplified and summarised to be either ‘kazi ianze’ or ‘kazi iendelee’. This means that they may seek freshness or prefer
continuity. The problem is that the freshness may not even be the person but
rather the party ticket, the marketing style, or other unforeseen phenomenon.
To obtain clearer reasons, such models are given
mathematical quantifications (impact analysis). Using statistical methods (path
coefficients), and drawing from historical results, information on campaign
strategies and responses from exit polls, new knowledge can created that
improves the game of politics and governance in the country.
The greatest benefit for a contestant to seek this analysis
is in understanding their win or loss. Unfortunately, not many care to
scientifically review their results. Therefore, those who win at times fail to
successfully defend their seats because they only assume the reasons they were
elected and the same befall those who lost when they try another time.
