The trust factor

Whose message can be believed? Photo: Noor Alam/ Driknews

RESEARCHERS have long studied the concept of trust. It is seen as a calculative process used to assess whether persons or parties one interacts with for a "salient" outcome will continue to meet their obligations. The calculation involves an estimation of the costs versus the rewards. It also involves imputing the benevolence of the other party to act in the best interest of the perceiver.
The sales literature is replete with studies of the customer-salesperson dyad where the customer's trust in the salesperson is a determining factor as to whether the transaction will take place. Based on past history and present cues, the customer must make a forecast of the likely behaviour of the salesperson that will determine the ultimate outcome the customer will experience. Most relationship dyads -- interpersonal, inter-community or even inter-country -- must reckon with this powerful behaviour modifier: trust.
Today's election also parallels the above where the aspiring candidates and the political parties they represent are like salespersons representing a certain company or product. In this particular context, the candidates make the big pitch with many promises of sunny days and eternal spring for the voters. With the all-important item in their possession -- the vote -- voters must make the same calculation to determine who will best represent their future and who will worsen their miseries.
Candidates who will garner the requisite number of votes will be catapulted to power for the next five years. How they will exercise that power is a moot question. Clearly this is serious matter and voters must give it serious attention. Only then can they choose the right product (candidate). They must carefully consider history and they must carefully consider the present cues (e.g., how realistic are the promises that are being made, do the candidates have the competence, who do they associate with, and so on). The successful product should be the one that is most likely to deliver long-term customer benefits and satisfaction.
What constitutes that successful product? In marketing parlance, successful products are those that subscribe to the marketing concept that stresses: identify a need and satisfy that need. Simple as the statement may be, successful products invest enormous amounts of time, resources and creativity to gain the customer's favour. They build a brand identity that speaks for itself. The brand that delivers customer satisfaction time and again wins acceptance and long-term loyalty.
Then there are the products that fail customers. Think of the recent milk products that were found tainted, causing harm to those who chose them or the restaurants that sell sub-par quality or even adulterated food that can endanger one's health. Are customers likely to choose them again? Occasionally, some of them may sneak in, disguised as another brand, to gain a second chance. But if they again lead to similar outcomes for the customers, what should their fate be?
The best products offer what the customer is seeking. Only by researching customer needs, adapting the product attributes, and paying the highest attention to satisfying the needs of the customer can success be guaranteed. The best products represent a set of core values that customers prefer and benefit from. They are developed with the right combination of attributes that the customers will really like and purchase.
Politicians and political parties are like these brands and companies in the marketplace of votes. If one might assume that the voter is rational, they will choose the best possible candidate. Past experience suggests that voters have done so, although there are skeptics also who challenge this contention.
In this election, what attributes are the voters seeking? One poll suggests that the primary attributes they are seeking are honesty (61%), education (33%), and dedication (18%). In another poll, voters (91.1%) clearly stated that they would not vote for a candidate who is perceived as corrupt, even if they represent the same party the voter supports. Topping the list, a third poll indicates that voters want the newly elected government to tackle corruption first (67%).
Clearly, voters are seeking candidates who are perceived as honest and trustworthy. How do politicians rate on these two attributes? A study published in the Journal of South Asian Studies several years ago, rated politicians in Bangladesh a 2.60 on honesty and 2.91 on trustworthiness on a ten-point scale where the lowest attainable score was 1 (not zero)! If the current slate of candidates rate similarly, and the media has produced evidence to that effect, what is the voter to do?
Lack of public confidence in its leaders is a persistent concern. One of the latest polls even lashes out at the present caretaker government, suggesting that any elected government will do better than what they have accomplished. Whether this is true or whether this represents voter fickleness is something that hindsight will tell us in the next few months. But what is important is to focus on those candidates who will inspire the most confidence.
Such confidence has tremendous implications for building social organisations, facilitating social cohesion, and creating an environment where economic and social exchange can take place without fear or apprehension. The bulk of this responsibility will fall on the elected. They must demonstrate serious intent to gain the trust of the voters and serve them.
Untrustworthy candidates portend dire consequences. Once in power, they can abuse the trust reposed in them with serious consequences for the voter. Bangladesh today has attained the reputation of being among the most corrupt nations in the world, a reputation that works resolutely against its opportunities in the global marketplace. For this, the political leaders have to bear responsibility, although businessmen, government officials, and in many cases the general public (who use bribes to gain advantages ahead of others) cannot be exonerated for confidence destroying behavior.
The ultimate question that voters must raise is a simple but powerful one: Whom can I trust? Informal polls in the media seem to suggest that the major political parties have discarded their ideals and ideology in favor of marriages of convenience with only one purpose in mind: to win the elections. In its wake there is concern that the voters will get a bad deal.
If the voters feel they cannot trust any candidate on the ballot, is there a way out? Seemingly there is a no vote option, although it is seems not have been widely publicised. This is likely to cause some voter confusion. But this is an option that allows voters to send a powerful message to political parties to put up trusted candidates. Placed in a situation where "consumers" lack confidence in a product, they cannot be forced to buy it. Why should they "buy" candidates in whom they have no trust?

Dr. Syed Saad Andaleeb is Professor at Pennsylvania State University and Editor, Journal of Bangladesh Studies, USA.