When can anyone justifiably criticize the choice made by a voter?
Voters , no doubt, have misconceptions and biases and are often enamoured of trivia like charm and oratory and beauty. Voters are supposed to be public spirited and should advance the common good. But what really is a sensible choice? So much subjectivity is embedded in these seemingly value neutral evaluations . Voters can only really be judged by clear objective context specific standards. Since ignorance of relevant
political and economical issues afflicts the voting public of even the western nations , voters in Nigeria would not merit any moral criticism for being relatively unenlightened. So when would a criticism not amount to an attempt at illegitimate restriction on self Igbo-mendetermination?
There has been a flurry of criticism directed at Igbos for their near exclusive preference of Jonathan in the last presidential elections. And I had on this column attributed their reflexive rejection of the APC to naivety and bigotry. Many have wondered why Ekiti people chose seemingly obstreperous Fayose rather than an urbane and articulate Fayemi. And not a few openly criticized that choice and attributed it to what they termed ‘stomach infrastructure’ a euphemistic term for exploitative inducement of voters with food and money. Why are many contemptuous of the Ekiti electorate for the choice they made? Are there any moral justifications for such widely held contempt?
What would reasonably justify the moral criticism of a voter’s preference? Democracy entails equality and allocates one vote to every man despite the fact that all men aren’t similarly intellectually endowed or politically informed . Left to John Stuart Mills , university graduates would have 5 votes each while unskilled labourers would have one. It would appear that current democratic practice prioritizes moral equality of persons above the rationality of outcomes. So democracy seeks to enthrone freedom through the widest possible equal consensual participation and perhaps purchases that at the cost of some rationality and perhaps efficiency.
Since democracy no longer seeks to weight intellectual capacity and insists on participation by nearly everyone rather than a select committee of very wise men it would then appear that voter preferences are in a sense incommensurables. Like the choice of colours or music. But voter choices unlike choice of colours can have very significant consequences on the lives of others . Electoral outcomes can be harmful. So voters must have some moral obligations .
Man, being a self interested agent , is not ordinarily suicidal. The social contract theory suggests that man preferred life in organized communities in furtherance of his self interests. In mutually submitting to the laws and coercive powers of the state every Nigerian citizen expects an improvement of individual autonomy
Personal autonomy is the capacity to choose and pursue a life path. The primary function of the state is to enhance the personal autonomy of citizens by increasing viable options and providing an enabling environment for individual and collective self realizations. An individual decreases his personal autonomy when he embraces harmful options. The unfettered freedom of an individual can be justifiably circumscribed by the state only to prevent him from either harming himself or harming others. So while a person has freedom to author his life he will rightly earn moral criticisms , and perhaps criminal sanctions in some cases, when he acts in a way that actually or potentially harms others or himself.
If harm is understood to mean the encroachment on freedoms then a man perhaps does not harm himself by voting an illiterate person rather than a professor. Because there is no factual necessary harm associated with that choice. Like a member of the Jury, a voter owes no one any explanation for voting in line with reasonably held beliefs . However , a misogynist who would not countenance the idea of voting for a woman can be morally criticized if the only reason for rejecting a certain candidate is gender prejudice. For in discriminating against women such a voter limits the freedom of others to be full members of the society, denies them human dignity and harms the general society.
Igbos are entitled to freely exercise their franchise like anyone else. And they can vote for whomsoever they want . Any one who is manifestly harmful should not be an electoral option in the first place because it is the duty of government to identify and remove harmful options from such public menu. This is not perfectionism of any sort. That is why convicted felons cannot run for elective positions even in many very liberal jurisdictions.
I criticized a rather wholesale rejection of the APC by Igbos on two grounds. One moral ground and one prudential ground. Igbos who rejected the APC by labeling it an Islamic party showed unhealthy religious bias which is harmful to the polity. I must not be misunderstood. There is nothing morally wrong with a Christian voting another Christian because they share same faith and there is nothing wrong with a Muslim acting likewise. But it would amount to religious intolerance or discrimination for a Christian to reject the idea of voting for anyone who is a Muslim solely on the grounds of religion. Every citizen of plural society has an ethical duty of civility.
We need to get the distinction right. Okeke can rightly refuse to vote an Ibrahim whom he reasonably believes is an Islamic fundamentalist. Because his right to religious freedom may be circumscribed by the election of such an intolerant fellow. But Okeke lacks moral justification to reject out rightly, based on religious considerations , a Balarabe who is a law abiding Muslim , who understands that tolerance is an indispensable virtue in a plural society. And it is not enough for Okeke to whimsically label Balarabe a muslim fundamentalist to avoid moral condemnations because that belief must be reasonably held, evidence based. Since the labeling of APC as an anti Igbo , Islamic party was purely conjectural and unreasonable there was then no justification for a total rejection of the party on religious or ethnic grounds.
I criticized the rejection of the APC by Igbos on another ground . I considered it naïve for an industrious, well dispersed , competitive ethnic group like the Igbo whose priority must the enthronement of equity, stability and fairness to fail to realize that their interest would best served by the coming of a strong national party to end one party domination, to create a truly national multi party democratic setting. The emergence and entrenchment of the APC and the political competition it would engender is in the overall best interest of the Igbo. It was patently shortsighted to dismiss the party on mere sentiments. This second criticism is however not a moral criticism but a criticism founded on prudential considerations.
Since there is no consensus on what amounts to overriding Igbo interests, some Igbos may perhaps give priority to an apparent emerging solidarity with the South South. Many others consider a resistance against the prospect of a return of Hausa-Fulani hegemony as having priority over the need for a second national party. Many passionately held the later view and they cannot be accused of ethnic or religious prejudice because they may have been conditioned by empirical experience. It is always beneficial to accommodate the voter’s subjectivity and analyze from the voter’s internal perspective. Igbos cannot therefore attract any moral criticism on this score
But then many have criticized the Igbo for the wrong reasons. For instance, the Oba of Lagos . And such savage displays of presumptuousness and crude attacks on freedom of choice have managed to polarize the polity to the extent any meaningful discourse on the reasonableness of a group’s electoral choice is now potentially inflammable.
Criticisms of the Igbo that border on voting for pecuniary benefits deserve more than a mention. Financial inducements did not make Igbos to vote for Jonathan. A few of the reasons why that happened have been proffered above. The conclusions and criticisms that rest on materialism are nonsensical. Similar criticisms have been levied against the people of Ekiti state. I would argue that Ekiti people voted Fayose for reasons besides material inducement. I do not seek to exonerate Fayose who has admitted employing such exploitative tactics.
But suppose they did. Can anyone criticize the choice of a voter in Nigeria who voted in a certain direction even if the direction was influenced by certain material benefits?
Lets get it straight , it’s criminal to buy or sell votes, the electoral act is explicit. But if I am so economically desperate that a gift of a bag of rice , three days to an election, sways my sympathy in one way or the other , have I really sold my vote? This isn’t same defence like “I stole the bread because I was dying of hunger “ . Selling in this circumstance must entail an unconscionable conduct by reason of a payment. Is the conscience of the desperate and dispossessed down trodden pricked by the acceptance of such gifts?
How much luxury for niceties do the poor have? Why wouldn’t a desperate poor man accept money to meet his needs? What really are his options? In a country where there are no social security nets, do voters view any benefits , any such inducements as exploitative ? And can they really be so if the poor gets practically nothing else from decadent politicians? Should poor voters rather give their votes to hypocritical politicians who entice them with policies and promises they have no intention to fulfill? These beguiling politicians who induce poor voters with cash or with false promises are unscrupulous exploiters no doubt. But can we read any culpability into the act of impoverished voters who accept material gifts? Can we all pretend to have this same luxury of low time discounting? You know that talk of mortgaging the future. Isn’t it true that for some, today is all that matters and not by choice? You know about living from “hand to mouth”.
Democracy must have some preconditions. A substantial part of the electorate must be free. The majority of Nigerians living below poverty lines are not free. A man who is not free does not have a free conscience and it would take valour to reject inducements. So is the exploited majority somehow condemned to a vicious cycle of domination by these manipulators?
Well , unfortunately, it would appear that the rulers believe so. They loot the treasury, deny the poor amenities and leave them desperate. Then prey on them , take their votes and head back into the treasury. The status quo where a privileged few in public and private sectors are extremely rich living off the majority who are desperately wretched and destitute is morally and practically unsustainable. Democracy has been held hostage. I pray that the time does not come when the poor will have to eat the rich. Why can’t every citizen must be accorded human dignity? A social security net for the poor, unemployed and elderly is imperative. Affordable health, compulsory education and accessible shelter are non negotiable. That way choice may be free.
No comments:
Post a Comment