COMMON DISTORTIONS IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AND HOW TO AVOID THEM

COMMON DISTORTIONS IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AND HOW TO AVOID THEM

BY
Henry Dongotey

Political campaigns have seen numerous distortion elements which tend to sway electorates into accepting or believing "untruths"

Here are a few of the many distortion elements you should look out for in your attempt to make certain of electing a right candidate for that political office.

NAME CALLING/ APPEAL TO PREJUDICE:
These are attacks on an opponent based on characteristics that will not affect performance in office. References to race, ethnicity or marital status can be subtly used to instill prejudice. In your attempt to critically validate a candidate for any political office, do not allow your judgement to be  influenced or clouded by utterances from opposition quarters. You are critical and fit enough to ask questions to satisfy your curiosity of any candidate.
I bet any aspirant will gladly meet you for a personal discussion concerning her or his candidature.

RUMOUR MONGERING:
These include statements such as, "Everyone says my opponent is a crook, but I have no personal knowledge of any wrongdoing," which imply (but do not state) that the opponent is guilty.
Falsehoods about political candidates are one thing you cannot eliminate in any political race. You may stick to the cliché that there is no smoke without fire. Yes you may be right. How about taking a critical view of this: ask yourself, do I know her or him to be a thief? Has there been any record of her or him being violent in public? Some may even appeal to personal qualities; naming their opponents as rude, intolerant, non sociable, among others.
Objectively ask yourself. How does these "attacks" on that candidate affect her or his performance as a political actor?

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION:
These are statements such as, "We all know Candidate B is backed by big money interest,"
You shouldn't be surprised to hear that in this coming election. That a candidate is supported or sponsored by NDC or NPP or CPP or PPP. These are means of drawing lines between political actors, their objectivity and hate for the said sponsors.
Student politics has become more critical than ever particularly because of these "messages"
However, communication students as students of the Ghana Institute of Journalism; are  charged with the responsibility if remaining fair, objective, transparent and avoid any sort of sentimentality in their bid to see a free and fair elections organised.

CATCH WORDS:
These are phrases such as "Law and Order" that are designed to trigger a knee-jerk emotional reaction rather than to inform.
In most cases, opponents resort to propaganda. We saw a lot of these in the 2016 US elections between Donal Trump and Hilary Clinton which saw the world watching. These messages are geared towards tarnishing the images of potential candidates for political offices. We should not be led into pits when we know our ways out of the jungle.
We shall hear them but what and how do we treat them? Do we tend to be gullible? Or look and probe further? I believe the latter will be more objective of us.

PASSING THE BLAME:
These are instances in which a candidate denies responsibility for an action or blames an opponent for things over which he or she had not control. Collective responsibility has been the order of every governing body. However, some candidates for the sake of being in opposition are quick to lay blame on others. The blame game has never solved a single issue as far back as politics began in the early centuries.
We can take a cue from the recent Dagbon community.

PROMISING THE SKY:
These are unrealistic promises that no one elected official could fulfill. As electorates, these are things we should consider. Look at the realistic nature of policies. Are they achievable? In what space of time? With what kind of resources? Or they are just being passed on to coax us into giving out our votes? Certainly we are wiser  than that. Let's consider  more realistic policies as we consider giving a thumb to any candidate.

EVADING REAL ISSUES:
These include instances in which candidates may avoid answering direct questions, offer only vague solutions or talk about the benefits of proposed programs but never get specific about possible problems or costs.
Yes! Political candidates are smart. They will easily walk away from responding to issues that are vital to the hearing of the electorates. If it puts them in positions that will make them feel uncomfortable, yes, they will be smart about ignoring them.

Ask candidates in GIJ some of these questions and check for yourselves how they respond to them.

1- When will GIJ get a sick bay?

2- How long are we going to rent chairs and canopies for events?

3- Are we ever going to have permanent wall clocks in the lecture halls?

4- Will there be a student trust fund  which shall be funded by them SRC dues to support students financially?

5- How do you plan on maximising our security and putting a stop to theft in GIJ?

6- How do you intend to bring a more concrete or tangible development to GIJ instead of the usual seminars, health walks, wash campaigns, workshops?

Will they shy away from answering them? Or their  answers will just be satisfying enough?

Students politics has come to an age or era that should see it move from the subjective, tribalistic, feministic, gender bias, inequality, false framing and chauvinistic acts.

>Check out the next article to be published on: Considerable elements in selecting a political candidate as an electorate.

Don't forget to leave your views in the comment section.

Facebook- Henry Lawerh Dongotey

Instagram- @henrydongotey

Twitter: henrydongotey

WhatsApp: 0552489472