This is probably the last time I am ever writing anything about politics. It’s been such a messy campaign period. I saw how some friends cut off ties over a political disagreement. Some people call other “bobo” and “not thinking” if they find someone’s choice of candidate not to their liking. I saw a rise of what could easily be a fandom. A popular celebrity tells non-voters to “shut up na lang.” Some people saying to just vote and not say anything when people have as much a right to campaign against a candidate as it is to have a right to campaign for a candidate. I’ve had to deal explaining to people some things they couldn’t follow an argument logically. There are some people smart-shaming other people when voting should be an intelligent affair. This following piece, I thought about after I read a few stuff over at Facebook and having watched some stuff from the news. You are, by all means, entitled to your own choice of candidate. But allow me to also share my own perspective in things.
Always, to justify the viability of a candidate, supporters find ways to poke at the error of the current administration. As if it should add anything to that candidate’s credibility. Comment on and condemn the error of this government. You probably like to use it to slam Roxas (and sometimes Robredo too), which is fine because he is part of this administration after all. But if you think that these wrongs necessarily justify the iffy factor of your candidate, think again.
Every single one of them (even Miriam Santiago who I support) has his/her wrongdoing. No one is ever clean and shining–that is farfetched. There are no absolutes, no either/or. It’s always been a mass of gray areas. Everyone promises a better society, but you got to check which one offers a laughable and unachievable utopia–by all means, stay away from that kind of candidate.
No, you don’t necessarily choose a supposedly saint-like candidate–they’re actually the ones you have to be wary of because there are high chances that they are only posing as such. You choose the lesser evil. A figurehead capable to maintain international relations, because no man is an island. Someone who has a concrete plan that you can follow through so that you know exactly which step s/he will take, and not merely rely on an abstract “pero ganito ginawa nya sa *insert city here*” (and by city here, it could be Makati, Tacloban, Davao, etc). A city is not a country, go check how Widodo’s situation over there in Indonesia. Choose someone who don’t rashly spit out words, because even a single sentence spur atrocity, war, and a threat of cutting ties between two parties. How many of you have lost friends because you said something unforgivable?
You have things to consider, and you probably considered quite a number of things before you end up choosing one. But then again, you don’t simply feed on dreams and swoon over someone’s apparent love for country ala-Heneral Luna. Even Heneral Luna, admirable because of his burning love for the nation, came up short.
You choose the heart, and you also choose the smart. You choose for the country. Electing your leader is, after all, not about unconditionals. This is not a fandom where you get salty over a moment’s criticism of your bet; where you blindly ignore what matters, devaluate morals, and simply opt to see it as a mere black propaganda even if the accusation is valid.
When votes are cast, and words are out there, there is no going back. But do take history with you in anything you do. History is not a lie. If it’s a lie, then it’s not history because it did not take place in time. Before you take your final decision: think, and think again. Probably spare a minute to close your eyes and imagine what kind of place you want to be in for the next 6 years. In that moment, do not think of a crime-free country filled with only good news and is devoid of social unrest. Instead, imagine one with stability and security–one where people move not fearlessly but assured of his/her stride.
Because life is not life without chaos.
[Photo from Facebook]