There must be more than a thousand reasons why citizens in a democracy should go to the polls. Jean-Jacque Rousseau summed it up best, if in paradoxical way, when he said people are the masters of their state only during the brief moment of voting, after which they go back to servants’ status.
It is from this rather sarcastic observation of the French philosopher that we see the biggest reason for the public to actively take part in politics not only on the voting day but anytime, anywhere.
Elections, and elected leaders, cannot change countries _ by themselves. The two major candidates have made hundreds of election pledges while campaigning, but they will be able to put into practice a dozen of them at most. Korea’s economy cannot maintain robust growth while most others in the world are struggling. Nor will North Korea change drastically just because there is a new government in the South, friendly or not.
It is only when people give their full support to elected leaders that Korea can change itself, however slightly and gradually.
Political books say elections are the flowers of democracy, and casting ballots is both a right and responsibility of citizens. In reality, however, people hit the polls to elect a leader and government more to their liking, and get what they want as a result. After all, politics itself is about how to distribute resources.
In a more mature democracy, however, elections should be more about realizing one’s values rather than gaining material benefits. Those who cast ballots in expectations of better welfare, namely free services and larger pensions, will feel satisfied if they get them. In this world of limited resources, however, someone’s meat is often another’s poison. If the current generation uses up all resources available, its burden will fall on the next generations.
This explains in part why this election, and any other polls for that matter, should not end up as a confrontation of generations, much less between old conservatives and young liberals. There are numerous old liberals and young conservatives in Korea today. In a value-based election, those who vote for the conservative candidate, should not complain about unfair advantages for others, because they opted for a world of no-holds-barred competition. Those who vote for the liberal runner should also be ready to give some of their lot to others in more difficult situations.
Ideology is another myth deceiving voters and watchers, both here and abroad. In this divided nation, ideology is less about political and economic value systems than about whether a side is sympathetic to North Korea or the United States. In another historical tragedy, the unpredictable life in this country has forced too many people to put survival and success over justice and fairness, and this sorry situation is more noticeable among pseudo-conservatives mired in Cold War mentality and sticking to vested interests.
It is not easy to choose between two candidates who identically say they will change the country and unite the people. The difference can be clear, however, to those voters who can see through the veils and identify which candidate is better able to move with the zeitgeist objective in 21st century Korea ― living with others.
Today’s freezing cold shouldn’t matter for those voters ready to realize their values and make their voices heard.