Global Perspectives on the Ballot Box

This article was first given as a presentation to the Austin University Area Rotary Club on Monday, August 5th.

All movie excerpts have been shared for educational purposes only and are protected by the Fair Use guidelines of Section 107 of the Copyright Act. All rights reserved to the copyright owners.

2024 has been an historic election year for many countries around the world. Newcomers have taken power in Argentina and Senegal. Mexico elected its first female president. The Labour Party abruptly regained control of the UK in a snap election. The far-right also lost ground in France, Poland and India. A massive fake-news campaign is trying to destabilize the results of Venezuela's election. The grand finale will be the U.S. Presidential elections, which will result in either our first female president or our first convicted felon president.

It's easy to become cynical about our politics, but our democratic system has spread around the world to varying degrees of success. Here are three very good films from other countries about elections which I think bring up interesting contrasts to keep in mind.

Media Literacy

First, I wanted to share my guidelines for how to interpret movies as cultural artifacts. Even if movies purport to be based on real events, they are always going to take liberties for dramatic purposes. Even documentarians do this, whether they realize it or not. However, we don't go to the movies for facts, we go for big ideas. So, while "fact checking" is not necessary, some quick critical thinking can help determine how a movie can be interpreted as resembling reality.

1. Who is the filmmaker? Most filmmakers, from any country, are from middle- or upper-class backgrounds, as university education is the norm. Filmmakers from smaller countries often had to study abroad to learn their craft. Their experiences affect their perspective, although not always negatively. For instance, a filmmaker who studied abroad may have more insight on their home country's cultural issues.
2. Who is the intended audience? Some films are made for local audiences, or even certain demographics, without any expectation of having a global audience. But some countries do not even have cinemas, so the filmmakers are expecting to "sell" their film to overseas film festivals or cinephiles around the world. They may be trying to convey a particular message.
3. How was the film financed? With a little practice, you can get an idea of this from the opening credits of a movie. Movies from major studios and corporations are usually intended for some kind of profit. Publicly underwritten film funds in Europe like to help fund films they have deemed culturally important around the world. These things have an effect on the content and the intended message of a film.

With that in mind, let's take a look at the movies:

No

2012, Chile, d. Pablo Larraín, 1h58m, Available to rent on most VOD services

Pablo Larraín studied filmmaking at university in Santiago; his parents were both involved in the post-Pinochet government in Chile. Larraín established an important filmmaking company in Chile which makes a lot of its money in advertising. He's directed several films about Chile's recent history, has helped other Chilean filmmakers produce their movies, and is generally considered one of the finest filmmakers in the world today, directing English-language arthouse hits like Jackie and Spencer.

In 1988, after 12 years in power, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet was pressured by the international community to hold democratic elections. He decided to have a referendum vote, under terms that would be almost impossible for him to lose. The vote would be a simple "Yes/No" referendum. "Yes" means you are happy with continued rule by Pinochet, "No" would lead to the uncertainty of an election in the future. Notwithstanding the possibilities of police harassment and potential for being arrested, the "No" campaign was to be run by a coalition of 17 different opposition parties with very little in common. They would get "equal" airtime of 15 minutes per day to explain their side. Of course, those 15 minutes would be marginalized at late hours, and Pinochet's campaign would get their own 15 minutes during prime time... and also all of the rest of the time as they owned the television network.

In the following clip, Gael García Bernal plays an advertising guru brought in to provide criticism of the "No" campaigns first video:

Whereas 40 percent of Chile still faced poverty, many of the people most likely to vote in a referendum had seen increased stability and economic status due to Pinochet's firm dictatorial control, compared to the unrest and lack of modernization of the previous Socialist regime. You may have also noticed in that clip, that one of the people in the room addresses Bernal as "comrade". The Communist party was a part of the "No" coalition, and Pinochet used fear of Communism against their campaign.

The marketing team in No suggests a different tactic for their campaign. They need to "sell" Democracy as their product. They need to associate positive feelings and happiness with the "No" campaign, the same way that Coca-Cola depicts happiness accompanying their product.

In the following excerpts, the TV advertisement that you see is a real advertisement from the 1988 "No" campaign:

The advertising is much better, and the campaign was successful, but it's worth noting that there is very little content in this ad. It sells you on positive "vibes" but does not have any answers on how they will achieve this because there were 17 different political parties behind it that didn't agree on the methods.

This was a controversial film in Chile because it did not tell the full story of the campaign, and it focused on these commercials which did not carry the bulk of their message. But Larraín's point is precisely aimed at the ramifications of this style of political advertising. It was a watershed moment for democracy everywhere, and we are still facing the consequences of it.

The Monk and the Gun

2023, Bhutan, d. Pawo Choyning Dorji, 1h47m, Available to rent on most VOD services

The Monk and the Gun is the second film by Pawo Choyning Dorji; his first film Lunana: A Yak in the Classroom was Oscar-nominated for Best Foreign Language Film. (The Monk and the Gun was also submitted by Bhutan for the Oscars, but it narrowly missed out on being one of the 5 official nominees.) Dorji studied government in the USA at Lawrence University, and then became a globe-trotting photographer for news magazines. Back in Bhutan, he was a set photographer for the production of one of Bhutan's first films by the Buddhist lama Khyentse Norbu (The Cup, Travellers and Magicians). Norbu would end up becoming his mentor in both Buddhism and filmmaking.

It was a little disappointing that the film was not nominated for an Oscar, as the Oscar "bump" was part of the strategy for financing the film. It was produced through a consortium of private film companies who knew Dorji had an established record of providing a crowd-pleasing film. The budget was about $500,000. It made a profit in international sales, but in the US it only made about $250,000. There are legions of cinephiles who desire to see every nominated film before the Academy Awards ceremony; the foreign films that are nominated typically earn at least $5,000,000 at the box office.

The Kingdom of Bhutan is so remote that it seems in recorded history that it was never colonized. The English never made it that far when they colonized India. It receives a lot of support from India as a buffer state on its border with Chinese-occupied Tibet. Bhutan's relative isolation has helped preserve its simple way of life.

The beloved King Jigme Singye Wangchuk, who started his reign in 1972, received a westernized education in India and England, which planted the seeds in him to eventually modernize Bhutan. Bhutan first got radio in 1973, it didn't get television or the Internet until 1999. The measure for success in all things for Bhutan is not GDP, but "Gross National Happiness". In other words, Bhutan would modernize but only at a pace that would not sacrifice the people's general happiness. Education and healthcare were made free to all under his rule, and life expectancy soared.

In 2006, it was time for the King to step down in favor of his son, but he had one last change to implement: democracy. Most of the powers of the monarchy would be conceded to a parliamentary democracy, but the people had never voted before so they would have to be taught, in a mock election:

Red and Blue parties, just like in the US and the UK. Bhutan would have relied on international experts to come in and train their own personnel on how to hold elections.

And it must have been a massive undertaking. Think of the logistics of registering an entire country to vote, all at once:

If we are "exporting" democracy from the West to countries like Bhutan, are we exporting it as a pure product, or does it come loaded with all of our baggage:

In an ideal world, our multi-party election system shouldn't be about hating the other side. The people of Bhutan never had to pick sides and be "against" their neighbors before. And the film depicts rifts between family members based on who they say they will vote for, as certain elders feel betrayed when their offspring do not vote in line with how they feel they should vote.

In the end, how would people vote?

In reality, in the mock elections of Bhutan, there were 4 colors. The yellow party did indeed win handily, but it was closer to 50%. I'm sure that Dorji knows this and has simplified things for dramatic (and comic) effect for his movie.

It is funny to think about trying to teach people how to run elections the way we do it. But who ever said our way of doing it is perfect? If only they had developed a different system, maybe one that was more suited to their culture, maybe they would have innovated and taught us something to improve our own elections.

The Perfect Candidate

2019, Saudi Arabia, d. Haifaa Al-Mansour, 1h44m, Free to stream on Tubi and Amazon Prime

Haifaa al-Mansour studied literature at the University of Cairo before getting her second degree in filmmaking in Sydney, Australia. Her parents wanted her to be a doctor or engineer, but the creative arts called to her: her father was a poet who showed his children many Western movies as they grew up, drawing the consternation of their conservative neighbors. She could have made her first film in any number of countries, but for authenticity's sake, she wanted to film in Saudi Arabia for a film about Saudi Arabian issues. Thus, she became the first Saudi Arabian woman to make a film in Saudi Arabia with Wadjda (2012), but the journey took many years. It was difficult to find funding, get the proper permits, and she had to direct remotely from a nearby van so as to satisfy laws about not being in the same room as her male actors.

Her fourth film The Perfect Candidate has several parallels with her life story and depicts her country struggling with a clash between modernization and conservative values.

Maryam is an ambitious young doctor who returned to her family's village to practice medicine, but she faces severe sexism in her conservative village. Her father is a musician who has kept traditional Arabic music alive in his household although he has not been allowed to perform publicly for decades; concerts have only recently been allowed again under strict guidelines for cultural edification.

One day Maryam goes to see a local official about paving the street that the ambulances use to bring patients to her clinic. The only way she can be seen at this moment is to apply as a candidate in the upcoming local elections:

Maryam decides that maybe she should run; she can run on the promise of fixing the road which is something everyone in the village should be able to agree on. But her gender is all anyone can focus on:

Further, it is difficult in Saudi Arabia to speak to your prospective constituents when you are not allowed to be in the same room as them:

Maryam faces an uphill battle that would appear hopeless. Her village is not ready to elect a woman. But the film has a hopeful message. By being brave and confronting the challenges, she gets people thinking, and she changes a few people's minds along the way.

I take heart in seeing that al-Mansour still has some hope for her country, that equal rights for women are being won bit-by-bit. And in some ways, the United States is not that far ahead; we have our own battles with ultra-conservative values that are keeping us from all living in peace together. We still haven't elected a woman as President, who can be an example for new generations of the equality we've fought for in our country.

Sometimes all we can hope for is the small victories that get us closer to the world we really want to live in.