Choosing Your Candidate Is Not a Crime

Choosing your candidate is not a crime.

As we approach another election season in Nigeria, many feelings are bubbling up. Some are angry. Some are anxious. Some are hopeful. Some are afraid. These emotions are common in a democratic setting, especially where politics involves identity, survival, memory, disappointment, and aspiration.

But there is a worrying trend that needs attention before it becomes accepted.

Some people now act like political disagreement is a betrayal. They insult those who do not support their chosen candidates. They call others ignorant, wicked, tribalistic, compromised, or enemies of progress just because those people have different choices.

That is not democracy.

It might be passion. It might be frustration. It might be political anxiety or even pain. But it is not democracy.

At the heart of democracy is the freedom of choice.

The majority may choose the winner of an election, but it does not own the voter’s conscience. The majority can determine the outcome, but it cannot erase the legitimacy of different choices. Democracy relies on numbers for its results, but its moral strength comes from citizens’ ability to choose freely, without coercion, intimidation, abuse, or fear.

This is where some people confuse two closely related ideas: choice and majority.

The majority is important in democracy because elections create outcomes. A society cannot keep disagreeing without a way to make decisions. So, democracy gives a process for counting votes, declaring winners, and transferring authority.

But before the majority is formed, individual citizens must be free to make their choices.

There cannot be a meaningful majority if choice is silenced by force. There can be no true democracy where people are insulted into agreement. There can be no real representation where citizens are emotionally pressured to support a candidate they do not believe in.

A majority from free choice is democracy.

A majority from intimidation, through mob pressure, is anti-democratic.

Remember that the right to vote is based on the idea that the voter owns their vote. Voters may choose wisely or poorly. They may choose based on ideology, ethnicity, religion, class, performance, loyalty, fear, hope, personal gain, or even sentiment. You might disagree with their choice. You might criticize their reasoning. You might campaign against it.

But you cannot deny them the right to make that choice.

There is no rule in democracy saying a citizen must support the candidate that others claim is the only acceptable choice. There is no law that forces a voter to adopt another voter’s anger, urgency, or beliefs. There is no moral law in democracy that says political disagreement is treason.

A citizen who chooses differently has not betrayed democracy; they have exercised it.

This was my point before the 2023 elections when I said that the idea of the “right candidate” is not what democracy is about. Democracy does not force one universally accepted candidate on all citizens. It allows for different preferences to be expressed, combined, and turned into political authority.

That process may not always give what anyone thinks is the best outcome.

That is the dilemma.

It is not a problem that can be solved once and for all. It is an ongoing challenge that must be managed.

If democracy were just about finding the right person, elections would not be needed. A group of wise people could simply examine credentials, assess character, evaluate competence, and announce the best candidate. But democracy does not work that way. It lets the people, with all their wisdom and mistakes, hopes and fears, prejudices and aspirations, make their choices.

That freedom is both the beauty and the burden of democracy.

The crusader wants quick change. The traditionalist fears disruption. The disappointed voter wants punishment for failure. The cautious voter fears trying new things. The young may want change from the past. The old may fear what the future holds. The urban voter may want efficiency and reform. The rural voter may want access and familiarity.

Each may have a reason.

Each may also have a blind spot.

That is why political persuasion is still valid. Campaign. Canvass. Mobilize. Argue. Write. Speak. Organize. Present facts. Expose contradictions. Defend your candidate. Criticize another candidate. Ask tough questions. Demand accountability. Use every lawful means of democratic engagement.

But do not insult people because they disagree with you.

Do not assume your political choice is the only proof of intelligence. Do not make your preferred candidate a mandatory belief. Do not turn democracy into a judge where everyone who votes differently is labeled foolish or evil.

The ballot is not a dirty word.

The ballot belongs to the voter.

Disagreeing with a voter’s choice is okay. Campaigning against that choice is okay. Questioning the reasons behind that choice is okay. But treating that choice as treason is a misunderstanding of the foundation of democratic participation.

You can appeal to the voter, but you must not seek to control the voter. You can persuade the voter, but you must not force them into submission by insults. You can disagree with the voter, but you must not deny them the dignity of choice.

We often see this on social media. A citizen’s declared voting preference sometimes gets met not with counterarguments but with insults, curses, ethnic suspicion, or accusations of betrayal.

Before anyone says that some choices have consequences, yes, they do.

Democracy does not free citizens from the results of collective decisions. A wrong choice might bring hardship. A sentimental choice might lead to disappointment. A careless choice might worsen national problems. But the answer is not to remove freedom of choice through abuse. The answer is better persuasion, better organization, better political education, better candidates, better institutions, and better civic engagement.

If someone is truly uninformed, inform them.

If someone is misled, engage with them.

If someone is afraid, try to understand their fear.

If someone is angry, listen closely.

If someone is cynical, ask what led to their cynicism.

But when the first response is an insult, the chance for persuasion gets smaller.

Politics is not about forcing beliefs on others. Democracy is not a place where dissenters are kicked out. Elections are not battles where citizens who choose differently are treated as defeated enemies.

A society that cannot accept political differences cannot practice democracy successfully.

This is crucial in Nigeria, where diversity is not just a theory. Nigeria is a complex society with many ethnic groups, religions, regions, histories, grievances, and political memories. In such a society, democratic growth needs more than just enthusiasm for one’s chosen candidate. It requires the discipline to accept that others may see the same country in a different light.

They may be wrong.

You might also be wrong.

That possibility is one reason democracy demands regular elections. Today’s majority might be tomorrow’s minority. Today’s opposition might become the government tomorrow. Today’s popular movement might become the establishment later. Today’s angry advocates might turn into tomorrow’s cautious traditionalists.

Power changes hands. Sentiments change. Alliances break. New grievances arise.

So, anyone who undermines the principle of choice today because it favors their side may need that same principle when the political landscape shifts.

Managing democratic challenges requires humility.

No candidate is above questioning. No party is beyond rejection. No movement is beyond criticism. No voter is beyond persuasion. But no citizen should be bullied out of their right to choose.

The responsibility of passionate political people is not to insult the voter. It is to convince the voter.

The advocate’s duty is not to scare people. It is to persuade them.

The democrat’s duty is not to demand conformity. It is to protect the process that allows different choices to compete peacefully.

At the end of the day, democracy may reward the majority with victory, but it must respect the minority with dignity. It may count votes together, but it must receive them individually. It may produce winners and losers, but it must not create citizens who are afraid to express their lawful choices.

So, as the political heat rises again, let us be careful.

Promote your candidate.

Support your party.

Defend your choice.

Challenge opposing views.

But do not act like democracy has failed just because others refuse to agree with you.

The freedom of choice is not destroyed by emotional outbursts, insults, or political bullying.

Again, voters are not obliged to agree with you.

At best, convince or “confuse” the voter to accept your choice, but the voter also has the right to reject your efforts. The beauty of it is that whatever choice the voter makes, no matter the outcome, they should feel satisfied that they freely used their democratic right.

Democracy is not the end of choice.

It is the protection of choice.

So, freedom of choice is not treason.

It is the heart of democracy.