Vote and throw away
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 28/04/2025
Share:
In the discipline that investigates the origin, evolution, and structure of language, reference is made to "homophones," which are defined as "those that have the same sound but different meanings," as is the case with "vote" and "throw away." We do not know, however, whether experts have devised or will devise a categorization of such words, taking into account their usage, since "voting," for example, for the Presidency of the United States, is not the same as "throwing away" the kitchen trash.
Voting, as it sounds, has been the subject of serious analysis, but also of disquisitions, ramblings, and nonsense. It is read that humanity is the human race, that is, the inhabitants of the earth, whose qualities such as love, compassion, and creativity make us "persons." The opposite, then, of cosmic beings. And while the presumption, for some "iure et de iure" and not for others, that "creation is the work of God," for theology "voting is a cult of worship." Its purpose is to glorify the Lord, which is why it is accepted in all religions, conceiving it as the path to relating to Him. It entails a commitment, since what is offered to God through voting becomes His property, making it clear that the voter's responsibility increases in the event of ignorance. A question for the reader seems pertinent: Will the same thing happen with regard to the suffrage system in the political arena? The author would answer negatively.
In this task, which is certainly more cumbersome than easy to delve into (a little more than poking around), and since the analysis of voting is not only a religious subject but also a philosophical one, luck is on our side and leads us to the pages of distinguished masters. Jonathan Wolff of Oxford asks, "Who Should Govern?", logically assuming that suffrage plays a decisive role in the contestation. The philosopher reminds us, as if in a kind of diagnosis, that "The English people think they are free; they are very wrong; they are only so during the election of members of Parliament; as soon as they are elected, they are slaves, they are nothing. In the brief moments of their freedom, the use they make of it is well worth losing." Wolff refers to Chapter 15 of Rousseau's The Social Contract, Book III, p. 266. A pertinent question, in principle, would seem to be whether what happens to the English is related to voters in other latitudes, where they vote for "the common good," that is, what is good or beneficial for all members of a society, the materialization of which becomes, in essence, the raison d'être of democracy.
In support of this assessment, it seems logical to assert that "without voting, governments would be unable to know what the people want." And if we accept, as previously noted, that it is "the common good," let us take into account that this, in the real context, seems to have become "a used napkin already on the ground." And as we read, for a few and quite a few, what seems to be more valid is what is antithetical, that is, "the common evil," fueled by injustice, both structural and institutional, that make a miserable human life possible, circumstances taken advantage of by "apparent patrons," who propose all that is good. The electoral result? With massive votes, but in favor of the "presumed benefactor." Of course, the ballot boxes are often also filled with numbers, rather than votes, given the suitability of the electoral authority. A more than frequent assumption, with the resulting choice for the person to vote or not, contrary to the maxim that "renouncing suffrage is still a serious error." The arguments: 1. We must vote because democratic processes are worthwhile in themselves, not by its results, 2. Voting is ratifying our confidence in democracy, 3. Abstaining is supporting the idea that the opposition is anti-democratic, 4. In democracy the rule is that power is won at the polls, 5. Let's go out and vote, not to win, but because we are democrats and 6. With democracy we must be there in good times and bad, not just when the results are in our favor. Finally, it would not seem impertinent to claim that abstaining from "voting" is "throwing away the trash."
In 1951, “In Defense of the Popular Vote” was published in Caracas by the illustrious Venezuelan politician, constitutionalist, tribune, and democratic leader, Jovito Villalba, who was described with absolute seriousness as “a champion of democracy.” In its pages, "the great master" explains the advantages of elections by popular vote for a Constituent Assembly, a path to advancing the main achievements of the Venezuelan popular movement that began in 1936. There, Villalba is forceful in his definition of suffrage: "There is no doubt that the election for a Constituent Assembly has and must have, as has always been the case in the political history of modern nations, 'a plebiscitary, universal, acclamatory character, an elemental and primary expression of the will of all the people,' which is inextricably linked, in the logic of constitutional doctrine, as in the dialectic of historical experience, to the extraordinary nature of the constituent function. The Constitution, the wise master establishes, can only solidly ensure peace and democratic freedom in Venezuela if it is born from the effective and sincere agreement of all Venezuelans, under the protection of a law and an electoral policy of national content and not partisan, officialist, or oligarchic." Villalba distinguishes between the vote for the constituent assembly, which he describes as "electoral, referendum," and the vote for the execution of the precepts of the Magna Carta that arise from it, primarily through "the laws" and their derivatives. "The Master," as he was also affectionately known, aptly distinguishes two types of votes.
Dr. Villalba was fortunate to have lived through the golden age of our democracy, to whose construction he contributed greatly. A master class, like the ones he gave, would have clarified the difference between "voting" and "voting out," more sensibly. He would have also indicated which institutions strive to achieve the "common good."
He would have also explained to us that "a democracy is governable when those who lead it take measures acceptable to the citizens, and that a regime is democratic if those who lose in the exercise of the democratic game accept it and continue to participate and support it."
One of the dilemmas of democracy is not voting, when doing so is always appropriate. This refusal is the foundation of the difference between "Voting" and "Botting."
Comments are welcome.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».