VOTER'S DILEMMA. The voters of Taleigao, in particular, are caught between the horns of a dilemma. Should they vote for the candidate or for the political party? Should they vote for a person who is known to have no great love for any political ideology, or should they vote for a person who has shown his loyalty to a particular ideology?
The current run up to the voting on June 2nd., has thrown up a difficult challenge for the electorate of Taleigao. Many argue that the choice is between corruption and communalism. One candidate represents a party that is openly communal and has clearly manifested its communal underpinnings. The other candidate has been fielded by a political party which has become notorious for its corrupt leadership. Some voters argue that corruption is so widespread and so pervasive, that it is better to elect a corrupt candidate than one who belongs to a communal party. In their assessment, corruption is preferable to communalism. Another point of view is that both the candidates of the two main parties represent both corruption and communalism. Therefore the choice is between the devil and the deep sea. People argue that given the character of the candidates, it is better to abstain from voting. However, in Taleigao, there is a third option: a candidate from a newly registered Political Party, who is not tainted either with charges of corruption or communalism. He is a "good" person. But the argument is that the votes should not be split, lest this ultimately results in the victory of one or the other of both the unacceptable parties. Implicit in this thinking is that one should vote for the lesser of two evils - however one may define the two evils. The flaw in this thinking is that the voters are constraining themselves to make a choice only between the two major national political parties. Voters are not willing to take the leap in the dark and exercise their choice in favour of the third option. There are many arguments. The candidate is not from the Taleigao constituency and he does not understand the dynamics of the constituency. But this argument does not stand scrutiny. Manohar Parrikar is from Mapusa, yet he stood as a candidate from Panjim - and won ! There is no overriding principle that only a person who resides in a constituency will be able to serve that particular constituency. There are innumerable examples of candidates from different States who have won their seats from other States, who have served their constituencies very well. Being from outside the Taleigao area should not be held against the candidate. The real dilemma, however, is the Hobson's choice of voting for a candidate whose reputation for corruption and high handedness is undisputed, and a candidate, albeit unknown, who represents a political party which has clearly manifested its communal agenda. This is the opportunity for the electorate of Taleigao to take the bull by its horns and reject both the unacceptable candidates. There is an underlying fear that one of the candidates is "bound" to win because he has spent considerable amounts of money in buying the loyalty of his voters. He also has the reputation of being vindictive. People are scared of reprisals if it is discovered that they voted against him. This only reinforces the conviction that people vote out of a sense of fear, rather than out of a sense of civic and moral responsibility. No wonder then, that we get the government (and the Ministers) that we deserve. It is high time that the electorate of Taleigao bury their fears and boldly assert their right to elect a candidate of their choice, who is a person of integrity, courage, and moral rectitude. It must be remembered, specially at this crucial time, that politics is the application of moral principles to public and civic life. Very unfortunately for us, the candidates who enter into the electoral arena have no scruples whatsoever about upholding moral principles. They make many promises at the time of canvassing for votes; but after they get elected, they forget about the promises which they had made. Manifestoes are not worth even the paper on which they are printed. We have many examples of politicians who have reneged on their promises. The only explanation which they offer, when confronted, is that they are driven by "political compulsions." Thus, "political compulsions" take the place of personal honesty and public integrity. Given the public record of such unscrupulous politicians, we would be stupid, indeed, to re-elect them as our representatives in the Legislative Assembly - and, perhaps, as Ministers of a government. Goans are well known for their political naivet�. They make moral compromises at the time of elections, and wail loudly, after the elections, about the rogues who, they themselves, have elected into positions of power. Another failure is that, Goan electors are easily swayed by the high powered propaganda which is hurled at them. They are easily convinced that a particular candidate "is bound to win," so they simply "fall in line" to ensure his victory. It is time, that we examine our own compulsions. It is time that we make courageous decisions to throw out the rascals and the opportunists. It is time that we elect honest, and dedicated persons to represent us in the Legislature - not corrupt persons who promise to "regularize" all the illegalities committed by their "friends" THE TIME IS NOW. TOMORROW WILL BE TOO LATE. Averthanus L. D'Souza, D-13, La Marvel Colony, Dona Paula, Goa 403 004. Tel: 2453628.
