Patriotism and a political dilemma

Someone recently asked me what patriotism is in the context of a general elections. I answered that it is voting in the interest of the nation. This is in contrast to a commonly held view of voting in one's own interest. Voting in this latter way results in the interest of the majority being served, which is not necessarily identical with the interest of the nation being served. One key difference is that minority interests may be ignored or sidelined -- which is not in the nation's interest.

Now we come to the political dilemma.

When one is caught on the horns of a dilemma, one has to choose between two undesirable options. This is true by definition. There are several ways of dealing with a dilemma. One can show that one of the two options is not undesirable (swallow a horn), or one can find a third option (go between the horns).

The presented dilemma is: Some voters have to choose between "losing a capable minister" and "having no opposition in parliament".

Swallowing the first horn can take the form of "the capable minister can be profitably re-deployed". Swallowing the second horn can take the form of "there can be alternative non-ruling-party members of parliament". Taking either route will render that option no longer undesirable, and hence may be chosen without discomfort.

Going between the horns can take the form of spoiling one's vote. Unfortunately, this means dropping out of the political process, as spoilt votes are not counted towards any candidate winning a seat.

There is a final way to deal with a dilemma -- choose the less of the two evils. Here, the voter has to ask himself or herself which option is less undesirable in the nation's interest: "losing a capable minister" or "having no opposition in parliament" -- then vote accordingly.

END