Voting is a personal choice and not a group obligation. It is often a personal and private decision and one should feel free to express their democratic rights and ideals as to who they’d vote for. There is also the right to speak freely about party selection and disparage the choice of candidate especially when you perceive the other options to be superior.
In Saint Lucia the level of sophisticated political discussion has devolved to the idea that nonparty members or easily identified members of the opposite side should be quiet when these incidents arise. As if the country runs solely on ‘red and yellow fever’. Everyone should have equal investments in who their potential representatives are. In good faith mind you.
No one should be blindly loyal to a party’s choice despite who they’ve presented to you. In the case of the SLP choosing Lisa over Joachim I quite agreed with the ‘no joachim, no vote sentiment’ despite my belief that the former was a superior candidate. Why? Constituents need not fall in line with party leadership if they have a serious policy disagreement. (See Islington North where after being delisted as a Labour candidate Jeremy Corbyn run independently and won nearly half the votes cast with a 30% swing against the party for which he had recently held the seat.)
That was obviously the case in the minds of those Castries Southeast congregants, and they should be applauded, political parties should earn your vote rather than expect it by default.
The lack of engaged runoffs, on either side, often lead to whispers of buyoffs and secret deals. Moreover, persons are removed from the process of vetting candidates and trusting that party leadership and constituents share the same ideals.
That’s a dangerous path.
When the carrot fails to work, the stick is often wielded with alacrity as supporters of Gregory St. Ange are already finding as they’ve already identified why the chosen candidate Dr.Shanda Harracksingh is flawed as opposed to him. The idea that the boogeyman of Allen Chastanet needs to be held against them is an exercise in cynicism and no true SLP supporter would split votes in a situation to get rid of the former PM.
Unity that feels forced is no true unity. The coercion behind the kumbaya singing and pretense that the party and its supporters have differences is a flawed approach. Real unity comes from shared values and trust not feigned agreement which leads to more explosive results as time goes on. A more respectful disagreement is far healthier than when we pretend to share value systems. Furthermore, as a voter, whether you’re red or yellow it is indeed your right to go down fighting wanting this person over that person despite what the consensus may be. All for one and one for all may be an apt slogan for the musketeers but staying true to what you believe is more honest.
The leader may choose a candidate who bends and bows to their needs and represents the interests of leadership but not necessarily the people. The decree that all should fall in line is troublesome to say the least. Are they truly standing in the gap to represent your voice or special political interests? And when we are silent, what other voices are we marginalizing and silencing? Political parties, despite their claims of #Puttingyoufirst, #Rightthewrong or #Protectingthevictory are more interested in collecting votes to win the next election. Be it by 5000 or 5 votes. By silencing or discouraging support for others, shamefully in the case of Ti Carro who had to go to Recovery, we shut down competition, ideas and diversity. The marketplace of ideas is often stifled when we don’t allow candidates, no matter how uncouth or gasp unpolished, to exchange ideas and proposals in our hearing.
Finally there needs to be some level of integrity in the voting process. I won’t fool myself into believing that many who disparage red for yellow or vice versa wouldn’t vote if the colours were switched. However, there must be some confirmation that you and the candidate share value systems, that when you make that final act you have had some level of conscientious choice
And despite what these politicians may have you think, voting isn’t just about winning. It’s about patriotism, principle, conviction and a value system.