Why voters reject traditional choices

When Americans cast their vote for Donald Trump, many commentators seem to assume that they must be foolish. Similarly, when South Africans back Jacob Zuma and MK, the reaction is often the same: how could anyone possibly choose these individuals? However, perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Instead of pondering how stupid these voters might be, we should consider why they are making such choices. Rather than dismissing these voters, we might better understand their motivations.

Consider the world of football, for instance. I do not support Manchester United. My reasons for disliking the club have little to do with football itself; it represents arrogance and superiority to me. Similarly, for many Trump supporters, their decision may not stem from a love for Trump but rather a rejection of Democrats, Washington, the establishment, or a system that they believe has failed them.

For some supporters of Jacob Zuma and MK, the decision might be less about believing Zuma to be a great leader and more about rejecting the ANC establishment and a political system that they view as having failed them.

The politician becomes the vehicle for expressing dissent. We should not ask, "How could anyone vote for this person?" Instead, we should question: "What has transpired to drive people to vote against the system so strongly that they overlook the leader's shortcomings?" This is because the alternatives may have become stale, complacent, disconnected, and most importantly, they may have failed to deliver.

This leads us to South Africa's most uncomfortable truth: inequality. For countless South Africans, the vast chasm between the rich and the poor is not merely a statistic; they experience it. Yet, there exists a tendency among parts of the privileged establishment to act as if this gap is no longer an issue. They assume that putting more black faces into positions of power signifies that the underlying problem has been resolved.

Despite the Springboks' transformation, with black players at the forefront and Siya Kolisi's successful captaincy, rugby still embodies deep-rooted white, particularly Afrikaans, South African history, and racism persists within the sport's culture. Therefore, when some South Africans of color support the All Blacks, perhaps we should ask why, rather than simply criticizing them for not backing their own country. Perhaps they perceive aspects that others are reluctant to acknowledge.

A black or colored child can watch a Springbok team that appears increasingly representative of South Africa, yet still step outside into a society where the economic divide remains immense. This parallels the mistake commentators often make when discussing Trump and Zuma: they focus on the symbol and ask, "How could anyone support him?"

They similarly look at the Springbok team and inquisitively ponder, "How could anyone support the All Blacks?" However, in both scenarios, they are examining the symbol rather than the underlying grievance. Perhaps the voter is not foolish; maybe both are conveying: "You are not listening to us." The real story, therefore, may not lie in the voter's perceived stupidity. Instead, it could be the establishment's failure to comprehend why the voter has ceased listening.