Would you vote for John Oliver? Guatemala would. In the first round of Guatemala’s recent presidential election, comedian Jimmy Morales won 24 percent of the vote. Morales’ rise symbolizes widespread opposition toward Guatemala’s current government officials. With “Ni corrupto, ni ladrón” (“Neither corrupt nor a thief”) as his campaign slogan, Morales promised to end the political corruption and lack of accountability that have plagued Guatemala’s current regime. Opposition toward the political establishment is certainly not unique to Guatemala; Morales himself even recognizes that “[my] candidacy is just part of the anti-corruption movement [happening around the world].” Indeed, the rise of figures like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders in the United States and the recent election of Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom suggest that citizens in democracies all over the world are losing faith in the traditional image of a politician.
However, Guatemala is particularly unique in its support for a political comedian. The case of Jimmy Morales offers an intriguing question: Is it viable to elect comedians into high offices? Unfortunately, while this notion might seem appealing at first glance, it’s highly unlikely that popular comedians would transition well into the public sector. The traits and skills that are useful in comedy are fundamentally different from those needed in politics. In fact, many abilities that make a successful comedian could actually harm political performance.
Comedians get to be idealists
People expect politicians to solve to their problems, but they merely expect political comedians to validate the fact that these problems exist and help us laugh about them. It’s much easier to criticize the status quo than draft legislation to amend it. Political comedians rarely, if ever, offer specific legislative proposals to fix the issues they discuss. Even when they do, they do not have to offer practical strategies. A successful politician cannot just advocate for everything that he or she wants; the political process involves an immense amount of compromise and bargaining. Political comedians, on the other hand, receive the privilege to paint their ideal worldview without ever thinking about how the government could feasibly achieve it.
Guatemalan journalist Enrique Godoy commented, “[Morales’] program is vague and naive. He didn’t expect to be in a position to win the presidency.” Other journalists have highlighted Morales’ lack of specific policy ideas as well as his support for impractical initiatives, such as providing smartphones to every child in Guatemala. It is easy to complain about how taxes are too darn high, but can a comic really decide which budget cuts to make?
Virtually every bill proposed in a legislature is rigorously criticized, challenged, and amended. Even the most popular ideas have backlash—as they ought to; forging better bills through criticism and debate is a fundamental part of the democratic process. In contrast, no one cares if comedians make ridiculous proposals; besides, they were probably just trying to be funny. Satirists get the best deal: if someone disagrees with what they say, the comments are interpreted as intentional satire.
Comedians get to curate their image more
In psychology, the tendency of people to internalize information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs is known as confirmation bias. Following the law is mandatory, but watching a comedy show is entirely voluntary. If a viewer isn’t entertained, he or she can change the channel. Viewers tend to gravitate towards news sources that reaffirm what they believe—causing these beliefs to become even stronger. Comedy shows follow the same rationale; this allows political comedians to be more earnest, less filtered, and less concerned about persuasion. If a comedian knows the other side is not listening, why bother to appeal to them?
While comedians get to appeal to a more limited audience, they are also able to speak about a more limited range of issues. A politician is tasked with a limitless number of issues to research and advocate. Political leaders and their staffs are expected to respond to as many citizen requests or special interest group demands as possible. Political comedians aren’t tasked with anything except maintaining an audience. They’re able to focus on the issues about which they’re most passionate or the issues that are the most interesting or funny. Rather than prioritizing the matters that are of highest practical importance or utilitarian value, comedians can focus on the stories that are the most entertaining to talk about—often stories that are either uniquely absurd, non-controversial, or superficial. Think of how many times John Oliver has mentioned Russian Space Geckos.
To be fair, Morales has honorably focused his campaign around an incredibly serious issue: corruption. The Central American Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that at least $500 million, equivalent to 50 percent of party financing and 6 percent of Guatemela’s annual budget, is lost due to bribes, money laundering, tax evasion, and other politically corrupt practices. However, if elected, Morales would be responsible for a wide array of other economic and social concerns as well. On these issues, his stances are not nearly as clear.
Even if a comedian does not have a clearly defined stance on an issue, they face little risk of being put on the spot about their ambiguity. A comedian has the advantage of planning his or her show. There is a script, there are rehearsals, and every word has been chosen ahead of time. Additionally, comedians are typically in the position of asking questions of guests rather than answering them. Political leaders rarely receive that type of comfort. Press conferences, interviews, town hall meetings, and legislative debates all require political leaders to respond to in-the-moment concerns. Additionally, current events require immediate responses. Political comedians can usually wait days or weeks to cover relevant content, but a politician does not have that type of brainstorming time during a natural disaster or terror threat.
There are many other political and governmental processes comedians simply do not have to deal with. Assuming a comedian can acquire a sufficient campaign staff and donor base to get past the campaigning process, the struggles get even more complicated when in office. Politicians have to be able and willing to cut deals with allies and adversaries; they have to know which fights to take and which to skip. They have to know how to shrewdly align themselves with other politicians and interest groups in order to acquire the support necessary for widespread change. They have to understand when they should take the center stage and when they should delegate tasks to others. Comedians live in a world of ideas; politicians live in a world of people. While much of Morales’ appeal comes from his distance from the current administration, he has no experience working with the kinds of people whose support he will need if he wants to implement real change.
While Jimmy Morales’ platform does include some specific anti-corruption measures, it is difficult to imagine how Morales will convince Guatemala’s Congress to pass such legislation—especially since many representatives benefit from the corrupt tactics that Morales wishes to ban. Seila Alvarado, a middle-class Guatemalan lawyer who voted for Morales, noted, “He may not be prepared to be president…but that’s we need! Someone new who doesn’t know how this corrupt political system works.” Unfortunately for Seila, it is unconvincing that a man who doesn’t know how the system works will be able to thwart it. It is one thing to complain about how much political corruption occurs, but could he really convince hundreds of self-interested legislators to change the system that helped them get elected?
Can a successful political comedian become a successful politician? Analysis of some of the traits and practices associated with popular comedians indicate that outsiders like Morales would encounter significant difficulties. While it is certainly possible for an individual to succeed as both a comedian and a politician, the two positions require fundamentally different skillsets. A newly elected ex-comedian would have to unlearn many of the habits that formerly gave rise to his or her popularity. If Jimmy Morales succeeds in the public sector, it will not be because of his comedic experience—it will be in spite of it.
Image Credits: The White House/Wikimedia Commons
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.