Why do voters choose controversial leaders?

Why do voters choose controversial leaders? This is a peculiar phenomenon that often leaves commentators baffled by the decision of American voters for Donald Trump and South Africans who support Jacob Zuma and MK. Rather than assuming voters are inherently stupid, we should ask "Why?" instead.

Consider football. If a football supporter dislikes a team like Manchester United, their reasons for not supporting the club may have little to do with the game itself. They may be rejecting the club's arrogance, superiority, or any other symbolic meaning associated with it. Similarly, Trump voters may not necessarily love Trump, but are instead rejecting the establishment, Democrats, and the system they feel has failed them.

Zuma and MK supporters may be rejecting the ANC establishment and a political system they believe has failed them, rather than believing Zuma is a great leader.

The real question should be: "What has led people to vote for these controversial leaders?" The answer may lie in the failure of the establishment to address the grievances of the voters. For many South Africans, the inequality gap is not just a statistic, but a lived reality. Despite efforts to diversify leadership positions, the underlying economic divide remains.

This disconnect is similar to how Trump and Zuma supporters may view the establishment. The voters aren't stupid; they are expressing their frustration by voting for leaders they believe can represent their concerns. Therefore, the real issue lies not in the stupidity of the voters, but in the establishment's inability to understand and address their grievances.