The price of an election
This title may have a thousand interpretations, but its purpose is literal. Elections are expensive and far from meeting democratic needs, so there is no better time to discuss your improvement than at the end of one.
One of the big issues of the Brazilian elections in 2018 was the Electoral Fund, which guaranteed to the parties 1.7 billion, directly from the public coffers. It’s ancient and inconclusive to debate whether parties use public or private money to promote their campaigns, with good arguments from both sides, but that should not be the issue.
First of all, what is propaganda?
“is configured as a technique of argumentation and presentation to the public, organized and structured in order to induce conclusions or viewpoints favorable to its advertisers.” source: jusbrasil
How can a medium created to “induce conclusions” be socially accepted for a democratic choice?
Here, it’s important not to confuse disclosure with advertising. Disclosure does not involve comparisons, denunciations, self-promotion or defamation, it’s restricted to exposing ideas. Any argument and interpretation is up to the media, the experts, and the general population, not the candidates. Therefore, disclosure is important and necessary, as opposed to advertising.
The problem is much greater if you think that the advertising and the big marketing companies are in the hands of who has more money. Anyone can claim that Bolsonaro won the election by spending far less than Alckmin (not counting the amounts that were apparently unlawfully invested by private companies), and that Corporal Daciolo got more votes than Meireles, but the point is that, by allowing electoral propaganda, justice legitimizes that money and marketing strategies influence political decisions.
In an ideal model of democracy, there should be only one official source for all government proposals, such as a website (and printouts made available in public places), where all candidates would have the same space to publicize their proposals. With severe restrictions on the use of visual artifacts and marketers, it would be the end of smiling actors, children’s jingles, and winning soundtracks to frame photoshot candidates.
Direct contact with the public is the only form of disclosure that serves some democratic purpose, which may occur in the form of debates, speeches, and meetings. No one else can stand up for free electoral propaganda, one of the biggest pseudo-democratic mistakes, and that almost can’t find supporters in Whatsapp times. It’s just an expensive stand up, compulsorily paid by our pockets (no less than 3.2 billion reais), and with short presentations, even for a joke. A model so bad that it does not influence voters’ decision (what a relief), as Alckmin made clear with his 4.76% of votes in the first round, even having the longest TV time among all candidates.
Ending free electoral propaganda is not just a matter of liberating conventional broadcasting of open TV (which is not much better), but an important step in reducing electoral spending. Yes, because the Brazilian elections have already been considered the most expensive in the world (David Samuels). It’s true that I’m referring to a study of 1994 elections, but little has changed since then.
It’s a lot of money to spend every two years, since at some point someone decided that municipal elections should not occur at the same time as presidential elections. A well-intentioned decision, I’m sure of that, but that does not take into account the cost and inconvenience to the population, after all, researching a few more candidates and jotting down their numbers, seems a small effort compared to the economy.
In 2016 this question was raised, when the withdrawal of President Dilma was still discussed. According to the forecasts of the time, joining the presidential and municipal elections would increase the expenses of the year by 50%, which seems acceptable to not have this expense again, two years later.
The issue is controversial, on the one hand because the presidential election can overshadow the municipal debates, on the other, because elections are too frequent for the country, and it allows mayors to abandon their mandates to seek vacancies as governors (Doria).
There is a lot of important things to discuss about the elections, among them our long-awaited liberation, also known as an optional vote. We walked into the 2020 elections tied to a 1965 law, which keeps us within the small group of 22 nations where voting is still compulsory.
Election research is also an important issue, influencing the vote, polarizing the population and weakening candidates that could be more relevant. Electoral research eliminates diversity and favors parties rooted in politics.
Another interesting proposal is the US model, with its previews, where the voters of a party have the opportunity to choose which candidate will represent them in the elections.
The fact is that we need to create the habit of discussing reforms and public policies at the moment they are most relevant, encouraging popular involvement and ensuring real change. Even because the true cost of an election, may be democracy itself.
