WHEN JOINING any contest, the objective is to win, no matter how the odds are stacked against you. All the effort and competitive skills are brought to bear towards success. The participant may not deem it necessary to craft a victory speech ahead of time, since this may bring bad luck, but does he even bother to think of a concession speech in case he loses? (Is he even going to be interviewed for his comments?) Still, the contestant must always consider the possibility, sometimes a big one, of losing.
Political contests are classic examples of the need to prepare for defeat.
A concession speech, after a loss, should contain the following — Gracious thanks to the supporters for the sacrifices made (including being with the defeated candidate rather than switching too quickly to the victor on the other side — that will come a week later), a reminder of the public service already rendered, an expression of the willingness to offer one’s talent to the people (who already rejected it), and the gratitude for having met so many from different walks of life understanding their dreams and aspirations, and maybe congratulating the winner and hoping for his future success in the new position. (This last one can be skipped.)
A public congratulation to the winner (He won’t have time to chat with the loser, anyway) and an offer, no matter how insincere, to help without asking for any concession or position in return may be seen as a desperate attempt to share in the media limelight.
Unless the contest is just between two candidates, the attendance at a concession speech is expected to be thin, especially in terms of media attention. The bigger crowd is in another place, more crowded and jubilant.
Seldom is any graciousness and acceptance expected from defeat.
Too often, the loser lashes out at the process that put him in the dark side of the stage, away from the lights of the television cameras which are in another part of the building — with the winner. There may even be hints of cheating.
There may be a protest march, a prayer rally, or, nowadays just as effective as a platform for whining, filing a case in court, or an invitation for an international investigation from election watchers, maybe a combination of these to give vent to the frustrations of losing.
And yet, losers may in fact have been truly robbed of their mandate, as is the case in a country in Latin America. International organizations may even be supporting this claim.
Chasing a big prize requires energy and monetary as well as emotional investment. The contest changes the contestants. Rules can be set aside, previously stated beliefs tweaked to conform to the prevailing sentiment from focus groups. Those formerly held in contempt may have been sought for alliances. And old friendships may need to be abandoned.
All losers carry the burden of humiliation. Will analysts of what went wrong be far behind?
Those who lose contests seldom concede. They prefer to fade away and lick their wounds in private. Their point of view is no longer objective. Bad procedures, unfair advantages, terrible officiating, uneven application of the rules are offered as explanations for defeat. Seldom does the loser grant or even allude to the superior ability and execution of the winner.
Even in a contest like sports which is attended by crowds, the interpretation of the outcome can vary depending on affiliation and team support. A close game that could have gone either way is seen as a lost opportunity by the loser — if only he made those foul shots.
The art of losing has seldom been perfected. Why should it be? The focus of attention is on the winner. The loser is a sideshow undeserving of any public reaction. After all, one does not want to be too good at giving concession speeches. All the effort and practice go into trying to compete fiercely, and winning, and then preparing a victory speech before a big crowd.
But it is a fact of life that there are fewer winners than losers. It is the singular gold medalist that attracts cash prizes along with celebrity status. Brave efforts that almost got an athlete to the podium may be warmly extolled in private. A concession speech becomes unnecessary — even embarrassing.
Tony Samson is chairman and CEO of TOUCH xda.
