To understand the
incentives that drive citizens who vote and the politicians who seek
their votes, we may need to appreciate the lessons of evolutionary
psychology especially in regard to male-female sexual relations. (I am
sorry for gay couples as this theory may not apply to them). Men want
sex from
women so as to pass on their genes. Women want love from men in form of
physical protection and material provision over a long period of time to
ensure the growth and survival of their off springs.
To get sex, men must
demonstrate (or at least fake) love. Men do this by demonstrating a
desire for long term commitment, exhibiting material resources and the
willingness to use these resources to support the woman and her
offspring. But it also works the other way round. For women to get love
and these material benefits, they must give men sex. How these
conflicting objectives are resolved explains human reproductive success.
Just imagine our
ancestors of tens of thousands of years ago from whom we have inherited
our current sexual psychology. Every act of sex, however reckless (like
cheating with a married woman) gives a man an opportunity to sire a
child. So the more sexual opportunities with different sex partners our
ancestral grandfathers had, the higher was the chance of them producing
many offspring and therefore leaving behind a rich genetic legacy.
Yet this was the
opposite for our ancestral grandmothers. Every irresponsible act of sex
by a woman may leave her pregnant without a committed partner to care
for her and her off-spring. She could end up without a man to gather
food, hunt wild game, or protect her and the child from wild animals and
rapists. So a woman’s reproductive success depended on having sex with a
man willing to build a relationship based on long-term commitment.
Yet if women have to
trade sex for love, then men have an incentive to pretend to be loving,
generous and committed. Once a man has enjoyed himself, he can walk away
from the relationship. To limit such opportunistic behavior by amorous
men, women evolved mental skills to read men’s intentions. A woman can
detect whether a man is seeking a long term commitment or is merely an
opportunist seeking a short term sexual liaison. One method of testing
to confirm a man’s intentions is to play delaying tactics; women tend to
withhold sex to test a man’s commitment.
Men in turn evolved
copying mechanisms. The best way to get sex from women, men had to go
beyond faking love and commitment (as fakes could be detected) to
actually evolving these qualities; the better to get sexual benefits.
Evolution is therefore an arms race between men seeking to exhibit love
and generosity and women evolving faculties to detect pretenders and
liars. What we got as a byproduct of the man’s selfish pursuit of sex
was the evolution of commitment and love.
The resolution of this
evolutionary puzzle offers us insights into politics. Politicians are
power seeking entrepreneurs; so they are essentially selfish. But to get
power in a democracy, they need to win votes of the majority. So they
must ingratiate themselves with voters. By championing popular causes,
they can win the hearts and minds of many. Problem is that voters are
not stupid. They know (or suspect) that politicians will fake public
spiritedness to get votes and once in office, do little or nothing.
Voters also know that
the private returns to individual politicians (in form of improved
status, income, prestige, etc) are high relative to the societal gains
that come as benefits of public policy. Voters have incentives to
withhold support from politicians until they demonstrate – over a period
of time – their commitment to the public good. In rich countries, it is
a politician’s record with different groups – labour unions,
professional associations, business groups etc that gives them advantage
in elections.
In Uganda (and other
poor countries) the test of a politician’s public spiritedness is
his/her involvement in community development work (like contributing to
the building churches, clinics, schools and bridges) and in cultural
activities (like attending clan meetings, funerals and weddings). Such a
record carries the needed reputational capital for the politician that
they have a genuine interest in the welfare of the community.
Yet all too often, the
politicians who win elections are not the ones who have been involved in
such community work. So why do people sometimes vote for urbanites who
clearly come during election time for votes. Here, the role of bribery
becomes critical. Voters insist to be paid in advance for their vote.
Candidates will distribute essential commodities such as sugar; soap,
alcohol and salt to the electorate, a factor that makes democratic
competition promote political corruption. This incentive structure works
to the disadvantage of opposition parties in poor countries.
Voter bribery works
because in the absence of community spirited candidates, most poor
people tend to approach politics as realists seeking to meet their
immediate material needs of food, jobs, shelter, security, etc. Many of
these benefits come by working through rather than against government.
Poor voters are likely to support politicians who are in a position to
provide these benefits rather than those who articulate a grand ideology
of freedom, democracy and clean government.
President Yoweri
Museveni’s public expressions of exaggerated generosity by dishing out
cash to citizens at public rallies and contributing generously to
grassroots organisations need to be understood in this light. It is his
alternative to the failure of the public sector to deliver public goods
and services. Of course all this is done at public expense and is
corrupt behavior. But it endears him to most peasants who see him as a
benevolent chief because they do not have a conception of the
president’s personal income being different from the public finances of
the state of Uganda.
In cities, more exposed
youthful militants frustrated with Museveni’s leadership are looking for
an alternative. Kizza Besigye has won their hearts. This is because for
all his faults, Besigye has demonstrated that he is a genuinely public
spirited politician. He has endured jail, beatings, pepper sprays and
worse and remained committed to his beliefs where others have
surrendered. His sacrifice has been enormous thus making him
trustworthy. It will take the opposition long to find an alternative to
him
amwenda@independent.co.ug
No comments:
Post a Comment