Taking the rural voter for granted- The Malaysian Insider
April 19, 2013 — Most political pundits are predicting a close race between Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Rakyat (PR) in the upcoming general election. In part, this is explained by the urban popularity of PR being neutralised by the deep hold BN has on the rural vote.
It somehow seems that this is as real a factor as the rich-poor divide, the Malay-non- Malay divide, the young-old divide and the conservative-liberal divide. In actual fact, the rural-urban divide as a predictor of electoral outcomes is misplaced. While how old we are, how much money we make, what our religious beliefs are and what our take on corruption is are all factors that help determine who we vote for, whether we live in a kampung or in KL is losing its impact on how we vote.
Firstly, there just aren’t that many people in rural Malaysia any more. According to a World Bank report published in 2012, the rural population of Malaysia was at 27.8 per cent of the total in 2010, declining at an annual rate of 1.65 per cent, the fastest in a decade. Typically, migration is a business undertaken by the young. As they get access to information and develop more sophisticated worldviews, these are shared with their families during balik kampung.
Simultaneously, household broadband penetration reached 61.5 per cent of all households by October 2011 as reported by The Edge, with rural areas especially targeted under the Universal Service Provision project. Increasingly, whether through the Internet or as in the case of rural Sarawak through distribution of free radios, the rural population has access to alternative political news and views.
The world is brought even closer with the improvement in physical infrastructure like roads and rail, improved access to air connectivity, advances in literacy, higher education and modern healthcare. While there is unevenness in the delivery of all of these, depending on a myriad of factors including corruption and their relative importance in terms of population metrics, it is clear that rural Malaysians are able to close the information gap at a much faster pace today with their urban cousins.
With this access to competing ideas, it seems baffling that politicians still continue to believe that the rural voter will continue to vote the way they have in the past just because pre-election handouts have worked in the past and politicians have been able to make voters believe that they should be grateful for whatever the government of the day has done for them, it has decreasing resonance today, in tandem with the rise in access to information across the political spectrum.
Of course, there will always be voters who are resistant to change, are genuinely grateful for the opportunities provided to them and have seen a steady improvement in their material condition, just as there are voters who believe a lot more could have and can be done with reduction in corruption, a better educational system and an end to race-based politics. But the battle for the hearts and minds of voters is much more likely to be a product of this competition of ideas than that on where they live.
Politicians would be much better off tailoring their messages on a different set of attributes predicated on their social and economic situation rather than merely those of geography. Otherwise, with time running out there could be a lot of bloody noses in rural constituencies this general election.
It somehow seems that this is as real a factor as the rich-poor divide, the Malay-non- Malay divide, the young-old divide and the conservative-liberal divide. In actual fact, the rural-urban divide as a predictor of electoral outcomes is misplaced. While how old we are, how much money we make, what our religious beliefs are and what our take on corruption is are all factors that help determine who we vote for, whether we live in a kampung or in KL is losing its impact on how we vote.
Firstly, there just aren’t that many people in rural Malaysia any more. According to a World Bank report published in 2012, the rural population of Malaysia was at 27.8 per cent of the total in 2010, declining at an annual rate of 1.65 per cent, the fastest in a decade. Typically, migration is a business undertaken by the young. As they get access to information and develop more sophisticated worldviews, these are shared with their families during balik kampung.
Simultaneously, household broadband penetration reached 61.5 per cent of all households by October 2011 as reported by The Edge, with rural areas especially targeted under the Universal Service Provision project. Increasingly, whether through the Internet or as in the case of rural Sarawak through distribution of free radios, the rural population has access to alternative political news and views.
The world is brought even closer with the improvement in physical infrastructure like roads and rail, improved access to air connectivity, advances in literacy, higher education and modern healthcare. While there is unevenness in the delivery of all of these, depending on a myriad of factors including corruption and their relative importance in terms of population metrics, it is clear that rural Malaysians are able to close the information gap at a much faster pace today with their urban cousins.
With this access to competing ideas, it seems baffling that politicians still continue to believe that the rural voter will continue to vote the way they have in the past just because pre-election handouts have worked in the past and politicians have been able to make voters believe that they should be grateful for whatever the government of the day has done for them, it has decreasing resonance today, in tandem with the rise in access to information across the political spectrum.
Of course, there will always be voters who are resistant to change, are genuinely grateful for the opportunities provided to them and have seen a steady improvement in their material condition, just as there are voters who believe a lot more could have and can be done with reduction in corruption, a better educational system and an end to race-based politics. But the battle for the hearts and minds of voters is much more likely to be a product of this competition of ideas than that on where they live.
Politicians would be much better off tailoring their messages on a different set of attributes predicated on their social and economic situation rather than merely those of geography. Otherwise, with time running out there could be a lot of bloody noses in rural constituencies this general election.
Comments
Post a Comment