The emotional aftermath of loss- The Malaysian Insider
April 30, 2013 — Attending an opposition ceramah, one is struck by the urgency and passion exhibited by candidates and supporters alike. It seems like this is the last chance for change, and it is akin to a life-or-death battle.
One thing is for sure. There will be equal amounts of elation and grief on May 6, irrespective of who wins. This is possibly the most inclusive election ever. Almost nobody has been left untouched by the grand spectacle that has been unfolding for the last few years, climaxing on May 5.
From a once-in-five-years event that seemed to be important only to the older generation, the spike in political awareness has been truly amazing, capturing the imagination of all segments of society. With this awareness has also come high levels of participation in the process, whether as a candidate, activist, volunteer or voter. With such a deep interest in the outcome, the losers are bound to harbour deeply negative thoughts after the event.
The most common analysis of grief, the Kübler-Ross model, identifies five stages in the process, starting from denial, to anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. When it comes to politics, candidates and members alike exhibit these stages around the world, albeit not always sequentially.
Perhaps the most famous post-election denial was Al Gore’s insistence on recount after recount in the US presidential elections against George W. Bush. Anger is probably the most dangerous and public state of grief, whether it be from finding oneself on the losing side or whether to express feeling of the democratic process being subverted by the powers that be. One only has to look at the Arab Spring to understand the depth of anger and the repercussions it can have. The fact that unlike death, losing an election forces the losers to confront the celebrations of the winners, making the loss doubly hard to swallow.
Closer to home, the attempted defection of 30 Barisan MPs to the opposition in September 2008 is a classic case of bargaining to somehow achieve the result that was not achieved originally. Or even the Perak constitutional crisis. Mitt Romney’s complete absence from the political scene after his loss to Barack Obama may be a sign of depression. Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s almost complete disappearance from the political scene may also be a marker of the same.
Acceptance is probably when everybody understands that the current process is over and picks up the pieces to fight another day. But what about ordinary people who have invested of their time and money in a cause they believe in only to find themselves on the losing side? The good news is unlike the grieving process and coming to terms with death, election losses are not permanent, and the majority of people have their everyday lives and jobs to go back to.
This is not to say that they will not have any feelings of loss and therefore grief, but they are unlikely to be as intense, or take as much time to get over as the passing of a loved one. The real danger is in the immediate aftermath of the event where under pressure over their loss or under incitement by vested interests, people may resort to uncivilised means to express themselves.
While denial and anger may be natural, violence and the desecration of what has taken the country decades to build is not. Because when the dust settles, it is much easier to move forward with what was originally there than to start from the debris of anger. Appeal, argue, go to court, protest but protect the lives and properties of your adversaries, because this is the true value of Malaysia’s common wealth and democracy.
One thing is for sure. There will be equal amounts of elation and grief on May 6, irrespective of who wins. This is possibly the most inclusive election ever. Almost nobody has been left untouched by the grand spectacle that has been unfolding for the last few years, climaxing on May 5.
From a once-in-five-years event that seemed to be important only to the older generation, the spike in political awareness has been truly amazing, capturing the imagination of all segments of society. With this awareness has also come high levels of participation in the process, whether as a candidate, activist, volunteer or voter. With such a deep interest in the outcome, the losers are bound to harbour deeply negative thoughts after the event.
The most common analysis of grief, the Kübler-Ross model, identifies five stages in the process, starting from denial, to anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. When it comes to politics, candidates and members alike exhibit these stages around the world, albeit not always sequentially.
Perhaps the most famous post-election denial was Al Gore’s insistence on recount after recount in the US presidential elections against George W. Bush. Anger is probably the most dangerous and public state of grief, whether it be from finding oneself on the losing side or whether to express feeling of the democratic process being subverted by the powers that be. One only has to look at the Arab Spring to understand the depth of anger and the repercussions it can have. The fact that unlike death, losing an election forces the losers to confront the celebrations of the winners, making the loss doubly hard to swallow.
Closer to home, the attempted defection of 30 Barisan MPs to the opposition in September 2008 is a classic case of bargaining to somehow achieve the result that was not achieved originally. Or even the Perak constitutional crisis. Mitt Romney’s complete absence from the political scene after his loss to Barack Obama may be a sign of depression. Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s almost complete disappearance from the political scene may also be a marker of the same.
Acceptance is probably when everybody understands that the current process is over and picks up the pieces to fight another day. But what about ordinary people who have invested of their time and money in a cause they believe in only to find themselves on the losing side? The good news is unlike the grieving process and coming to terms with death, election losses are not permanent, and the majority of people have their everyday lives and jobs to go back to.
This is not to say that they will not have any feelings of loss and therefore grief, but they are unlikely to be as intense, or take as much time to get over as the passing of a loved one. The real danger is in the immediate aftermath of the event where under pressure over their loss or under incitement by vested interests, people may resort to uncivilised means to express themselves.
While denial and anger may be natural, violence and the desecration of what has taken the country decades to build is not. Because when the dust settles, it is much easier to move forward with what was originally there than to start from the debris of anger. Appeal, argue, go to court, protest but protect the lives and properties of your adversaries, because this is the true value of Malaysia’s common wealth and democracy.
Comments
Post a Comment