The politics of positioning

By MT Webmaster On Nov 17, 2013

Thus far, Pakatan Rakyat has been able to get away with being evasive regarding various positions. We agree to disagree. We will only act based on consensus. We will sort it out once we get into power. We have no objections to them using it as long as it is not abused. We cannot reveal that yet or else the government will steal our ideas. We try harder because we are number two (Avis’s brilliant marketing line that eventually made them number three).

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Positioning is very crucial in marketing. I did a study on the subject once and was quite surprised to find out that your success in the positioning game can also result in your failure.

For example, Xerox had already positioned itself as the number one of photocopy machines and IBM as the number one in computers. So they were very successful in their respective markets. But when Xerox tried its hand at computers and IBM at photocopy machines, they lost their pants and had to cut their loses and get out of the market.

The market just could not accept IBM photocopy machines and Xerox computers because this was not the ‘position’ they had built up (at least in America). So they withdrew into the market that they reigned supreme and continued to be the number one in those markets.

In politics, especially in American politics, positioning is also very crucial. This becomes even more important when both choices are fundamentally the same. If it is a Socialist party or an Islamist party or a Christian Democrat party, and so on, then the choices become clearer. But when both contenders are seen as the reverse side of the same coin, then positioning may have to decide the victor.

And the American media will always bombard contenders with questions regarding their position, in particular when both candidates are perceived as basically cut from the same cloth.

What is your position on national security and the threat from Islamic fundamentalists?

What is your position on the Middle East and Israel?

What is your position on China and America’s huge debt to China?

What is your position on abortion and the decline in moral values?

What is your position on gay marriages and gays in the military and the church?

What is your position on welfare and the healthcare system?

What is your position on education and religion in the schools?

What is your position on pollution and the global warming?

The list goes on. Basically, we the media, on behalf of the American people, want to know your position regarding these and many more. And the contenders had better be ready with answers.

The main thing here, however, would be whether you reply truthfully based on what you believe or should you reply according to what the voters would like to hear so that you can win their votes? Maybe the Christians would like us to believe that the truth will set you free but that does not mean the truth will win you votes.

In the past, Malaysian politics was very simple although complex. It was simple in the sense that Umno was about Malay nationalism. PAS was about Islam. PSRM (now PRM) was about socialism. MCA was about Chinese interests. MIC was about Indian interests. DAP was about…hmm, I am not sure what it was about other than anti-Malay interests. PPP, again, I was not sure what it was about other than another socialist party. And so on.

But that line has now become blurred. And with the coming of Semangat 46, an Umno splinter-party (now defunct), and now PKR, another perceived Umno splinter-party but trying to project itself as a multi-racial party (Malay-base-multi-racial party was how the late MGG Pillai described PKR), we are beginning to not be able to tell one from the other.

In short, with Gerakan, DAP, PPP, PKR, and so on, all trying to present themselves as multi-racial parties, the lines become blurred even more and identities get lost in translation. And soon the line between Umno and PAS will become hazy as well when both start to move to the centre.

In time, most of the parties would have no clear identity, especially when DAP becomes less Chinese-centric and PAS less Islam-centric, added to Gerakan, PKR, PPP, PSM, etc., all offering the same ‘product’ of multi-racial and liberal politics. And if Umno becomes less of a Malay-centrist party, this would create utter confusion in the market (so maybe Umno should remain a rightist Malay party for the benefit of Pakatan Rakyat).

Up to now, Malaysian politics has been the politics of mudslinging. But what happens if Umno cleans up its act and PAS becomes more liberal and discards its hard-line Islamic stand? Invariably, there would be less mud to sling. So they would need to market themselves in other ways to win votes. And this is where positioning becomes very crucial.

Soon the questions that the US media asks the American politicians would be posed to Malaysian politicians. It will no longer be about how bad or corrupted the other side is (and therefore vote for the better and cleaner me) but what your position on these various issues are.

But the recent controversies, especially those regarding Islam, can no longer take the ‘elegant silence’ treatment. Also with the other issues such as English language, LGBT, and so on. Sooner or later, each party’s position must be clarified. And better sooner than later before someone ‘steals’ that position.

Many say, because of the Internet, the Malaysian voters are today much wiser than, say, ten years ago. If that is so then that is also bad news because a wiser voting population is also a more demanding population. Hence the wiser voters would analyse your position and vote according to your position since the other person is the reverse side of the same coin anyway.