At the homestretch of the campaign leading up to tomorrow’s national and local elections, various candidates and their supporters have mouthed the word “unity” in varying degrees of sincerity.
For a while on Friday, for instance, it looked as though two presidential candidates would join forces to counter the lead of the survey frontrunner. They have, after all, acknowledged many months ago—when they were still exploring the viability of being allies—that they could both be agents of a so-called straight path, not necessarily confined to the incumbent’s version.
But it appears now that neither would give way, if at all such an act could still make a difference, this late.
Other candidates have promised to promote unity and heal the wounds that the bitter campaign, if not the past six years or several decades, has caused. We wonder how they can do this and project themselves superior to their opponents, still.
On social media and elsewhere, friendships and family relationships were tested by one’s preference for, or aversion to, a candidate. This has set apart this election from previous ones—disagreements and outright exchanges happen between and among those who know each other and don’t, also in varying degrees of conviction and rabidity.
Is unity at all possible in this diverse ocean of opinion?
That the elections will finally take place tomorrow brings some measure of relief. At the least, the political posturing will end and the focus would be on ensuring that the results reflect the will of the people. The most difficult task would be after a winner has been chosen and the nation embarks on another six years—with whom, and how.
Unity is illusory. In this nation of more than a hundred million, and even more so with a leader who gets elected by just a plurality, it is impossible for people to agree on any single way the country can be run and who can do it best. There will always be dissent and criticism. There will always be the disposition to assert oneself as morally and intellectually superior over others. There will be suspicions that people, whatever their lofty pronouncements, are ultimately just after their own interests.
We can, however, agree that the lack of tolerance for those who do not agree with us has greatly hampered our progress as a nation and given the impression that those who do not share our opinion are immediately our enemies who want to bring us down.
Tomorrow’s exercise will reinforce the fact that whomever we supported, if we supported anybody at all, we share the same fate as the rest with whom we agreed or disagreed. The best approximation of unity is to be vigilant at all times, hold the next set of leaders accountable for their actions or inaction, and engage the government as active citizens instead of commenting bitterly, and passively, from the sidelines.