There is this popular message that comes up once an election is around the corner: vote wisely, vote for the right candidate, and vote with conscience. It is a popular phrase among politicians, celebrities, religious leaders, and activists. I have witnessed a lot of elections, and that advice is missing the identity of the right candidate. Many times it seems that we already know who the best person is, but is that true?
If we all know the right choice, as we assume, why not tell people who are going to vote? If one candidate has a trace of corruption or disregard for the rule of law and another candidate has a good record, it will save everyone confusion and time. For me, this seems like the best option.
If the right choice is supposedly obvious, why not simply tell people who to vote for? If one candidate has a long history of corruption, incompetence, or disregard for the rule of law, while another has a stronger record of integrity and leadership, wouldn’t it save everyone time and confusion to openly recommend the better option? This may seem like a sensible idea; let's check it in many aspects of our lives. Someone must have recommended us to someone. So recommending someone that will lead us will not be bad.
When we talk about democracy, it shouldn’t be about the right outcome; it is about protecting the citizen’s rights. An influencer can come online and tell people who to vote for and who not to vote for. This point I see as manipulation. One’s election is at the corner; there are a lot of endorsements. Political parties are campaigning for their nominees. Community leaders share their own opinions on why they should vote for one particular person. I keep telling people that a healthy democracy depends on informing the voters and not the other way around.
For some years now I have always had this challenge of who the right candidate is. As voters we all have our different choices. A voter may prefer a leader that takes care of healthcare, another security, and another education and economic reforms. While some will focus on honesty above everything else, once a candidate is honest even when the candidate has flaws, voters will disagree on whether another candidate will be better than the candidate that is honest.
I have been asking myself this question: if a few people who should decide who everyone will vote for, will it be a good idea? It will look dangerous because today they may genuinely support a particular leader, and tomorrow, the same set of people can also promote someone who is after their self-interest and not for the betterment of the general public. That is when democracy comes weak.
Many times candidates' actions can be a threat to democratic values. For democracy to be healthy, it should be built on informed choices rather than instructive choices. Citizens should have access to accurate information and transparent records of every candidate’s performance. This will help the candidate to know the best candidate to vote for instead of relying on someone else's opinion.
The goal is not about telling people who to vote for but to enable them to know and figure out who is a good leader when they see one. It will be nice if voters have a clearer understanding of who and what to vote for so that the leaders will be held accountable. With this, voting is made easy, and they will choose wisely.
Lastly, voting with your conscience will only become meaningful when that conscience is informed with truth and accountability.
This is my entry on the weekly prompt voting your choice? #hivelearners #hl-w223e1
All images is generated with ChatGPT.
Thank you for stopping by my blog. I appreciate your comments, support, and upvotes. Do have a lovely day.
