Politics and the use of Positive Psychology to encourage more citizens in building the future

Recently I received an email from one or other political party which asked me to complete a short survey. Reading the first two questions reminded me of a political leaflet I got through the door a while back, which asked very similar questions, but let me come back to that a little later ...

I had the pleasure recently to speak with a few politicians about their passion for improving their community and environment. Many spoke - with possibly a little bit of rolling of the eyes - about the times they were cornered by a citizen about some dog poo or a pothole needing repair. Having a curiosity for politics, though considering myself fairly apolitical, I fully understood the slight frustration shown by the politicians.

While it is helpful for politicians to reach out to the community, their interest is or should be with the 'bigger picture'. To understand the bigger picture, politicians and the people who support them rely on high volumes of data to spot trends etc. Unfortunately, politicians have lost a lot of favour of the last decade and the voting public are predominently voting with their feet.

So how then can politicians regain the public trust? And what is it about dog poo and potholes?

The first two questions on the questionnaire were:
- Do you have a problem with dogs fowling the pavements?
- Do you have a problem with potholes which require repair?

The first question on the leaflet:
- Do you have any problems you would like your political representative to look into?

Now what is the 'problem' with these questions? The questions are built on negative psychology and negative language, and - unlike in maths where (- + - = +) - that does not make for a positive citizen response. Firstly, the questions are appealing to those citizens who are already on their 'soapbox' about one or other 'problem', which is not so much an issue. Secondly however, the questions do not invite a response from those citizens who do not have a problem, but who may have views or ideas that can really make a difference. They, at most, will tick the 'No' box if you are lucky. If unlucky, the questionnaire will find its way to the bin, which would be an opportunity lost!

Let's use a positive psychology question. For example:
- We value the views and ideas of local citizens in making our communities stronger and more resilient for the future. Do you have any views or ideas about how to improve your neighbourhood?

This question does not exclude the person who would have answered the previous 'negative psychology' questions, but what do you think could happen to those citizens who do not have a problem, but may have had an idea or two about making their community even stronger? Also, note the sublety, the question does not actually state that the politician will take responsibility for taking the problem away or making the idea work?! So depending on the view or idea, further 'negotiation' can take place about who is best-placed to make the idea work.

Rebuilding citizen trust will take time without a doubt, but what if it could be as simple as changing viewpoint and language use. Is it not worth a try?