Democracy is a concept that encourages and gives freedom and responsibility to citizens to choose their leaders. In democracy, citizens have the liberty of free hearing, choice of leader and arguments, they can sit and make their own decisions, regardless of what others think. To practice a healthy democracy, we don't vote cluelessly, but cast our vote with proper information about whom the particular candidate we are voting for truly is and this is where the controversial saying" vote with your conscience and for the right candidate" comes in.
Just like the national anthem, every election cycle/season, citizens are advised during campaign and election rallies to vote for the right candidate and also vote with conscience. And this saying or advice will always leave us asking, is there a wrong candidate?
Let's consider this, in a country where a particular leader has a record of corruption, incompetence, dishonesty and bad leadership and that particular leader is contesting for a chance to lead, that's clearly the wrong leader and then there's an opponent who has a good record, known for his competence and honesty, a leader that is the people's choice and without compromising he's trustworthy. Comparing these two opponents, if someone was to walk to anyone and tell them to" vote for the right candidate and vote with your conscience", they are just trying to pass an information.
If it's difficult for them to figure it out, educating them is also necessary, because you are saving everyone from suffering in the hands of a bad leader.
This is another way of exercising democracy. In a democratic state there's liberty and freedom. It has no effect on democracy. It's not a forced or harmful decision.
Telling someone to vote for the right candidate and vote with conscience still leaves them with an option, they can still think independently without influence. Even after educating them, they still have the right to choose who to vote for and not to vote.
If telling them who to vote will save the country and society from further harm, then it's the right thing to do without imposing it on people or bribing them to vote for your choice.
After all, in a healthy democracy, it's necessary to consider the freedom of the citizens to think independently, analyze competing ideas, and make their own choices.
Another aspect to consider is their choices of leadership. People vote based on their values, we all prioritize different issues and sectors in the country.
When selecting a leader, I consider things like security, education, healthcare, and economic growth, but to another person, they might just consider economic growth and neglect every other sector. With this, it's difficult for all of us to have a particular candidate in mind, because we will all choose to go for a leader who prioritizes all we value and another person is going for just a single value.
The right candidate for me, could be the wrong one for another person. Democracy also recognizes our different opinions and diversities. We all have the right to go for what matters the most to us.
Democracy also gives us the right to advocate for good leaders in our society. Every citizen has the right to advocate and convince others to vote for a candidate who's fit for leadership. From the political parties, activists, journalists to ordinary citizens, it's our right to campaign and advocate for the right leader. A bad electoral choice affects everyone at the end of the day. It's a plaque to all.
In conclusion, our goal shouldn't be telling people who and who not to vote for, but rather sharing information, education and knowledge with enough facts and evidence to guide their choices. They should be able to identify the right leaders by the knowledge and information we impact them. They should be able to think for themselves after this knowledge is passed.
