Publications
Partners
Security upgrades happened without his knowledge. Supporters nod and agree. He is not responsible, it is only his due and of course he must have them. Non-supporters ask what is wrong with everyone; did fairies build the firepool in the night? Can’t people see he is robbing them, he is robbing the country? Why continue to vote for people that rob you and make promises they don’t keep? What is wrong with people? New revelations of apparent wrong-doing, right-doing, amnesia, dissociated presence arise and people’s responses remain the same. He deserved it. He’s never involved, never responsible. These things just happen. A reasonable voice that indicates that you have misheard, misunderstood, been influenced. He answered the questions perfectly, he didn’t answer a single question, he’s laughing at us all, he’s just laughing at the opposition, he’s in control, he’s lost all control, it’s organised crime that is running the country, government has a plan. They have done good, they have done little, it’s happened despite them.
Spin doctors are paid to say what they say. They will support whoever pays them. But surely the population can see what is happening?
Positions don’t change easily. More and more vociferous arguments are brought out to play. Loud voices shout it is history, it is racism, it is part of us, it has to be removed, it is justice, you are bad, you are evil, you are stupid, and so on and on.
Very rare is the person, amidst all of this that says “I was wrong.” “I made an error of judgement.” “I trusted them, and I was misplaced in my trust.” “I supported them, but I have decided that I am unhappy with the policies they are pursuing or the way in which they are being implemented.”
Of course it is not just the politicians, although they do seem to have mastered the art of self-justification.
The husband or wife engaged in an extra-marital affair does the same thing. “He has lost interest in me.” “She never wants to have sex.” “Do you know how it is to have to compete with golf?” “It was only a matter of time and one of us would have an affair, the marriage had lost all meaning long ago.”
Cognitive dissonance was in the news recently in the case of Thandi Maqubela where a social worker testifying in mitigation of sentence indicated that she should be given a lighter sentence as she had “cognitive dissonance” for committing the murder against her moral beliefs. I believe this is an inaccurate use of the theory. During the guilty verdict the judge had repeatedly indicated Ms Maqubela’s dishonesty. Her moral beliefs do not appear to have been very powerful and the further expedience of murder appears to fit in well with what was disclosed of her character during the trial.
Cognitive dissonance, was first conceptualised as a theory in the 1950s. Leon Festinger and his collaborators studied a cult led by Dorothy Martin (pseudonym Marian Keech) who claimed the world would end on 21 December 1954. When it did not happen, Martin claimed that the group had saved the world because of their faith. Group members believed their discredited beliefs more strongly and proselytised fervently. Group members who had sacrificed the most (for example, sold their houses and resigned from their jobs) were the strongest believers.
In essence, cognitive dissonance arises when someone experiences psychological discomfort because of two conflicting beliefs. They can lower their dissonance by incorporating information that challenges their beliefs and changes their behaviour or they can avoid information that will increase their dissonance. The people who had invested heavily in the cult, reduced cognitive dissonance by believing they had saved the world. Their beliefs were not only right, they were the responsible position to take. Let’s take another example: When someone has the belief that they are not a competent person and they are praised for their work, they can decide that they are actually capable and start to behave with confidence or they can decide that it was simply a fluke; they will never repeat the good work and continue to believe that they are incompetent.
Does cognitive dissonance have an explanation for the difficulties of opposing political supporters to hear one another’s points of view? Probably yes. It can also be used to explain why there appears to be unthinking acceptance of politicians’ bad behaviour. When supporters of a political party have a lot riding on the party, which is the case in the highly charged political landscape that is South Africa, it is extremely difficult and sometimes dangerous to change your political views. If you had made sacrifices during the struggle, believed that you were making those sacrifices for good and are now faced with corruption and dishonesty, it is very hard to change allegiances. If you believe that your group was essentially on the side of the angels during the struggle, you supported change, you were different to the people who supported apartheid, it is going to be very hard to look beyond the rhetoric and dispassionately examine yourself and whether you are actually, deep-down racist. Those who are trying to bunker down in preparation for the apocalypse for whites in South Africa obviously have a huge investment in maintaining their beliefs and are very unlikely to be open to other points of view, even when presented with the facts with disprove their beliefs.
We need to step back from the emotional rhetoric and dispassionately examine the facts. A very hard ask and very few people do this easily, but it is very, very necessary. We need to hold ourselves and our political leaders accountable. We cannot make excuses for ourselves or for them.
