In the past, when there is always a vacant position probably in the local level of leadership, and in a case whereby there are multi candidates on ground who are fit for the position and all necessary requirements are met. There is always a background check on whoever is up for this position to either get a previous negative act or family related act that could reveal the unworthiness of such person to that position and eventually make them have a one or just two persons worthy of the position for easy decision.
Despite this whole process of investigations, it still do not write off the fact that people are given the avenue to exercise their rights of appointing a leader.
Even though this whole processes for background check may still exist in our political world of today, it is either to tarnish the opposition party or person just so he or she can be out of their own party's way to be on the winning side. The whole check is not done for the benefit of the citizens to be able to know who and who is fit or right to be voted for.
On my part, I think the functionality of democracy is not only for the people to decide their leader or who governs and rule them alone but to also bear the consequences that follows their decision of a leader. Either good or bad choice, as a country that practices democracy, people will definitely be given the avenue to think for themselves as to who is right for them to lead them either to enjoyment or hell.
But can things change even if things turns around to us having it like in the past, where we can be shown or told publicly and openly that this candidate only is the right person to vote for?
Just like a momma of mine said, humans are the weirdest and difficult to deal with and even cows are far better in leading way for as a herd than humans.
Let it be shown to us even by the angels of heaven, that "oh ye my people, after careful check, observation and screening, this person is the only qualified candidate that will make your lives comfortable and lead you well while others will be a bad leader if appointed", this does not mean that you won't still see multitude of people shouting and hailing to vote or campaign for the bad ones.
At times, it is not about we not knowing the bad people who wants to come into government but it's about ourselves who is actually bad at making the right lifetime decision that would benefit us on a long term. We would rather go for the little mouth opener things politicians wanna offer us to get our votes.
If we are new to new incoming set of people who are yet to rule for us to know how bad they will be, what about the ones who have been there before and we know already what they offered us during the first term of their governance. Still, we would choose to rally behind them for another term all because of temporary goodies.
I was having a conversation with my dad a few nights ago and he shared how he saw people queuing and fighting for space over a loaf of bread been shared at a political ward. For what? Even if you want to do this, should it be for a loaf of bread no matter how poverty rate may be in the country?
An aged woman and a few others planning to go to a community CDA (community development area) close to mine to get money from some political representative of a party and even after all I tried to say to them, they wouldn't understand because it fell on their deaf ears. Not because they do not know that these people are wrong options for them to support but because of the temporary gifts they wanna receive from them.
In conclusion, either democracy is practiced where people can decide who to vote for OR the right person is shown to them from the cross of revelation, citizens will still vote for their wrong choices.
I'll be dropping my 🖊️ here on the Hive Learners community prompt
Thanks for reading through 🤗
All images are generated using AI
