When Democracy Becomes a Game of Emotions: Why Rational Decision Making Will Shape Our Future
- Haobam Pravinsen
- Aug 28
- 5 min read
When Democracy Becomes a Game of Emotions: Why Rational Decision Making Will Shape Our Future
Every election is important—whether it is for a nation, a state, a constituency, or even a small village council. Democracy gives power to people. It gives every individual the right to choose their leaders, regardless of education, wealth, or social background. But there is an irony that repeats itself across the world: many voters often make decisions based not on reason, but on emotions, false promises, or short-term benefits. The result? Those who are capable of making rational choices often find themselves outnumbered and silenced by the majority who are misled.
This problem is not unique to one country; it happens globally. From the most advanced democracies to the smallest local governance structures, elections are shaped less by Rational Decision Making and more by human psychology. To understand this deeply, we must look at why people fall into the trap of lies, promises, and emotional drama.
The Power of Emotion Over Reason
The philosopher Plato once warned: “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” This statement is timeless. In every society, people who are educated, informed, and rational may see through the drama of elections, but their votes are equal to those who may be easily swayed by emotions or promises.
Modern psychology supports this. Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize-winning psychologist, explained in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow that humans have two systems of thinking:
System 1 – fast, emotional, automatic.
System 2 – slow, logical, rational.
Most voters, when standing in front of a ballot box, rely on System 1. They do not carefully analyze policy details, past records, or governance capacity. Instead, they respond to charisma, speeches, gifts, promises, or even the way a candidate looks and talks. Politicians know this and design campaigns to appeal to emotions, not reason.
The Drama of Promises
During election seasons, every candidate becomes a hero, a savior, and a problem-solver. They promise jobs, free schemes, subsidies, and even “change” that may never come.
Why do people believe these promises even when they know politicians have lied before? Psychology has an answer. It is called the availability heuristic—people judge the truth based on what feels most recent and emotionally striking, rather than on logic. For example, if a politician loudly promises to “end poverty in five years,” many people believe it because the promise is easy to imagine, even if it is unrealistic.
The French philosopher Voltaire once said: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” This reflects exactly how lies, when repeated with confidence, can shape mass behavior.
The Trap of Group Identity
Another reason why rational voters are defeated by irrational ones lies in the psychology of group identity. Humans naturally form groups—by caste, religion, ethnicity, or political party. Social identity theory explains that people derive pride and belonging from their group. As a result, many voters do not choose the most capable leader but instead vote for “one of us,” even if that person lacks competence.
This creates what political scientists call identity politics. Instead of thinking: “Who can govern best?” people think: “Who represents my group?” This pattern has led to poor governance across many countries, where leaders rise to power not for their abilities but for their ability to exploit identity divisions.
Rational People, Irrational Motives
The irony is that not only uneducated or uninformed people make poor decisions. Sometimes, educated and intelligent people also manipulate the system for personal gain. They may not believe in a candidate’s promises, but they support them because it benefits their business, career, or personal ambitions.
In this sense, there are two groups of irrational voters:
The naïve irrational – those who genuinely believe the lies.
The strategic irrational – those who know the truth but support lies for personal benefit.
As a result, even the most rational thinkers, who vote sincerely for the betterment of society, are drowned out by the majority.
Why Democracy Still Matters
Winston Churchill famously said: “Democracy is the worst form of government—except for all the others that have been tried.” This statement shows the paradox: democracy is imperfect, often driven by irrational voters, yet it remains the best system humanity has discovered.
The real challenge is not to dismiss democracy but to strengthen it by educating citizens. When more people are able to think critically, analyze promises, and look beyond emotions, the quality of leaders will improve.
Psychological Theories Behind Voting Behavior
Confirmation Bias
People tend to believe information that supports what they already think. If they like a leader, they ignore evidence of corruption. If they dislike another, they reject any good that leader has done.
Bandwagon Effect
Many people vote for the candidate who seems most popular. “If everyone is supporting them, they must be right,” people assume. This leads to mass support for a candidate, regardless of their actual capability.
Cognitive Dissonance
Once people commit to supporting a politician, they feel uncomfortable admitting they were wrong. So, even when the leader fails, they justify their choice to reduce psychological stress.
Fear Appeals
Politicians often use fear—fear of unemployment, fear of another community, fear of instability. Psychologists have shown that fear is one of the strongest motivators in decision-making.
The Global Nature of the Problem
This issue is not limited to developing nations. In the United States, the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, and elections across Europe and Asia, we see the same patterns: emotions, drama, lies, and manipulation defeating rational analysis. Democracy is global, but so is human psychology.
Can We Solve This?
The solution lies in education and awareness. When people are educated, they do not automatically become rational, but they gain the tools to question and analyze. Civic education—teaching citizens how to evaluate political claims, how to fact-check, how to look at long-term consequences—is crucial.
Abraham Lincoln once said: “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” This means that the values we teach our children today will shape the leaders and voters of tomorrow.
Media also has a role. Instead of amplifying drama, they should focus on facts, accountability, and policy analysis. Social media, which often spreads lies quickly, must be used responsibly to spread truth and critical thinking.
A Call to Rational Voting
Every rational voter must understand that democracy will never be perfect. But silence is not an option. As John Stuart Mill wrote: “The worth of a man is in proportion to the objects he pursues.” Rational citizens must pursue the higher goal of protecting democracy, even when they feel outnumbered.
The responsibility is not only to vote wisely but to influence others—family, friends, neighbors—through conversation, discussion, and example. Rational voices may be fewer, but they are powerful when persistent.
Conclusion
Democracy is both fragile and powerful. It gives every person an equal vote, but not every person makes an equal decision. The educated and rational are often defeated by the emotional and irrational. Yet, the answer is not to abandon democracy but to strengthen it with education, awareness, and responsibility.
People everywhere must learn to look beyond lies and promises, beyond fear and identity, to see who is truly capable of leading. Only then will democracy serve its true purpose: the progress and well-being of all.
As Thomas Jefferson once said: “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” The future of democracy depends not only on leaders, but on the wisdom of the voters themselves.
Comments