More of the same
IT is said that in every election, only two kinds of candidates emerge: Those who win, and those who think they were cheated. Presumably, there are candidates who are, indeed, cheated during elections. But in terms of material blessings, all candidates are in a win-win situation.
Regardless of the outcome, they usually emerge wealthier than they were before election time, considering the donations or contributions they received for their campaign. Wily businessmen and political strategists invest huge sums of money in a candidate, in exchange for special concessions or privileges for the former’s businesses or political interests.
Just to be sure, they donate not only to the leading candidate, but also to his or her rivals. What happens to the unspent contribution? It is usually added to the future “campaign chest” of the candidates. But more often than not, it forms part of their “hidden wealth.”
The big role that money plays in an election makes our democracy suspect. Those who have more money and machinery are assured of victory. What’s good for the few is working against the common good.
Money and political machinery transform voters into pragmatists. So today, voters hardly ask: “Who is the honest candidate, with a solid reputation for integrity and simplicity of life?” Brainwashed by political advertisements and surveys, they now ask: “Who is winnable?” One young student remarked, perhaps out of desperation: “Why should I vote for someone who has no chance of winning? During these times, I have to be practical.”
Honest candidates with no political machinery and wealth are tempted to
adopt the same mind frame. They join a party that will assure them of victory, even if this party includes candidates of dubious of character. They ask themselves: “Why live a simple life when those who claim to represent the poor and the marginalized have enriched themselves at the expense of their constituents? Why be sincere and honest, when all the rest are rewarded for their greed?”
The politics of greed is a bottomless pit. No matter how many times a politician wins in an election, he remains insatiable because today’s luxuries are tomorrow’s necessities. A senator might be happy sitting in Congress today, but tomorrow it will bore him. He starts dreaming to become president. A president may feel content with his office today, but tomorrow, he will dream of staying there for as long as possible.
The relentless pursuit of status, power, and money that marks past elections makes us doubt if indeed we are a people with common sense, independent judgment, and moral autonomy, which are the foundations of authentic democracy. What was once an arena for exhibiting the nobility of the human spirit, elections have become an auction sale of recycled and power-hungry personalities.
Sometimes, I ask myself: “What if conscientious non-voters in our country banded together to put an end to this expensive and ludicrous exercise?” If past elections had not improved the system of government, the logical course is to take a different direction rather than drift with what doesn’t work. We cannot fix defective process with ‘more of the same.’ The refusal to vote IS itself a vote.