Should I go vote in the elections?

With God’s help

Point – 2019

How will we fulfill our civic duty?

During this period, everyone is again debating which of the Game of Thrones players we should give our vote to. The prime minister of ten years ago, who is today's opposition leader, and tomorrow's foreign minister/finance minister? Or perhaps the foreign minister of today, who is tomorrow's opposition leader, and the prime minister of the day after tomorrow? In this game, things go up and things go down, and the country always stands (for now, miraculously).

My little self, as someone who didn't vote in several previous elections, is already used to receiving reprimands, along the lines of: "At least vote for the lesser evil." "Why this indifference?", I'm asked. And most of all: What about "fulfilling your civic duty"?

The reasonable voter (is there such a thing?) these days bothers to find out who the lesser evil is. Whom does he hate/despise the least? And you ask him: Why even vote for someone you don't believe in? He will answer you seriously and with a sense of responsibility: Because we shouldn't be stanish children, who expect a perfect party. The perfect is the enemy of the very best. The mature voter understands that he must find the lesser evil and vote for it. That way, at least what can be saved can be saved. In other words: I vote for A because B is worse than him. A is the lesser evil.

And so Reuven votes for Bibi because he doesn't want Olmert. And Shimon votes for Barak because he doesn't want Bibi. Levi votes for Sharon because he doesn't want Shulamit Aloni. Issachar votes for Hadash because he doesn't want Balad (actually, why not Ra'am, may God bless him and grant him peace?). And little Binyamin, the youngest of the boys, votes for the pensioners, simply because he doesn't want all the others (and besides, he always liked Gideon Reicher in Night Birds Talking to Themselves).

The common thread for all is that they vote for the lesser evil. Seemingly very rational, enlightened and not childish. And what my little ego (= the reasonable non-voter) would like to suggest to the intelligent reader: Please be a little childish. Expect someone to vote for you and not against his competitor. And what until then? If there is no such person, then you should refrain. Do your civic duty, and don't go vote.

The token fell on me about four years ago, in the midst of an exhausting municipal struggle that we waged in a small town somewhere in the wild south, at the end of the world to the left. The struggle was waged against B, a corrupt and violent council leader who had abused the town and its residents since he was elected (who was eventually removed by the Minister of the Interior due to his misdeeds). B was elected to this term instead of M, a more relaxed and honest council leader, but I also really disliked his policies and the shortcomings that characterized them. In the elections in which the two ran against each other, as is my custom, I did not go to the polls ("And that's exactly how, because of you, B was elected," everyone told me). I refused to vote for the lesser evil, and even tried to convince others not to do so. About a year later, during the exhausting, frustrating, and discouraging struggle (which suffocated to death all the political aspirations that I never had), they asked me what would happen if they decided on an election now? I said that if these were the two candidates, I would not go to vote again. And what if B is elected again? Then we will fight against him again, I replied.

What I learned in that struggle is that voting for the lesser evil paralyzes the institutions of government. When there are two eternal candidates, like B. and M. in the same town in the South, who have been running against each other for almost a generation, it is a surefire recipe for paralysis. Neither of them is really successful, and one of them is really corrupt and violent, as mentioned. What should we do in such a situation? Vote for the unsuccessful one who is not corrupt, as my friends said? In my opinion, we should avoid it. Consistently voting for the lesser evil guarantees to each of them that his supporters (=haters of his competitor) will be with him through thick and thin, regardless of what he does, whether he succeeds or not. After all, if we don't vote for M., B. will come, and vice versa.

A good friend of mine, a vigorous leftist activist, told me after the Second Lebanon War: We will in no way work to overthrow Olmert, because then Bibi will rise. That same friend told me during the happy days of Arik Sharon (around the First Lebanon War), when he was still on the 'right' side, that the man is corrupt, violent and dangerous to democracy. In the end, it will hurt you (= the right), too, he told me. The right, of course, refused to listen, because if not, then Rabin/Peres/Ahmed Tibi and so on will come. Arik is at least corrupt and predatory in the right direction. Once again, the policy of the lesser evil in the short term has prevailed over long-term considerations. Today (after the n+1 Lebanon War) it seems that the time has come to repent and to sober up from this erroneous approach.

The policy of the lesser evil paralyzes the political system in several ways: 1. It does not allow additional candidates to enter the field. 2. It neutralizes the public's influence on its elected officials. 3. And from these two it follows that it prevents any possible improvement in the functioning of the government.

1. A new candidate cannot enter a system in which all voters are captives. No one will vote for him, lest it weaken my candidate (=the lesser evil) and elevate the opposing candidate (=the greater evil). I will not vote for Yotzem, otherwise Bibi will not defeat Barak, or vice versa. Therefore, I will vote for Bibi/Barak, because he is the lesser evil. And so we perpetuate the game of political chairs and paralyze the entire political system with our own hands. This leads to a situation in which the system is headed by incompetent, unintelligent, and corrupt people. And most of all, people over whose actions we have no influence. Nothing.

So, because of the policy of the lesser evil and "fulfilling our civic duty," today's prime minister is tomorrow's foreign minister and the opposition leader of the day after tomorrow. Everyone fails and survives, and the game of chairs continues. The laws of evolution are broken before our astonished eyes: the unfit survives, and this is because the fit cannot enter the game.

1. The policy of the lesser evil also shows its signs in our energy, involvement, and care as citizens. Mistakes of the magnitude we have experienced in recent years were supposed to bring millions to the streets, to the point of violent rebellions against the various governments. This did not happen. Even after the Second Lebanon War, with all the trauma, and with all that there was a complete consensus in the public regarding the functioning and responsibility of the government. Here we are today two and a half years after the war, and the candidates are the same candidates (except for those who happened to be voted out due to corruption), and the sea is the same. Nothing changes. What is the reason for this? Because we have lost our influence over the candidates. We are prisoners in their hands. After all, I will not stop voting for Likud, otherwise the Alignment will come, and vice versa. So why should the Likud/Alignment change? Look at how the protests after the Second Lebanon War affected Olmert. He simply laughed at us all. A wall-to-wall national consensus has failed to move him even a millimeter from his seat. The voter currently has no influence on his elected officials, and therefore they have no reason not to renege on promises made before the elections, since they will not be held accountable for them in the next elections either. There is no reason to do anything as a result of public opinion, since it will have no consequences for the next elections.

2. How do you break this vicious circle? How do you introduce new, more talented, and more successful forces into the system? The core of the democratic process is political evolution. An evolutionary process requires the creation of mutations, both successful and less successful (after all, the process is random). The survival of the successful while weeding out the unsuccessful ones is what leads to improvement. Those who do not allow mutations to occur, for fear of the damage they may cause in the short term, thereby prevent the possibility of improving the system in the long term. Failures are the necessary price of improvement. Ironically, the fear of failures is the very thing that brings them about.

Therefore, these two results of the lesser evil policy, that is, of fulfilling our civic duty, prevent possible improvement of the system.

If we are not willing to vote for an unknown candidate, or abstain if there is no one we think is worthy, and pay the price of unworthy mutations, i.e. failures, in the short term, we will never improve in the long term. Without allowing mutations to go extinct, there will never be evolutionary change.

And what if the new candidate who proposes himself and we vote for him fails? What if he turns out to be inexperienced and unsuccessful? Or maybe even more corrupt than the current ones (is there such a thing?)? Then we will replace him too. And what if his replacement is also like that? Then we will replace him too. Will we survive until then? By now, they will probably eliminate us, the questioner will ask. After all, we do not have this privilege, he will say, since our situation is acute. Maybe next time we will be able to do it, in the next elections, but not now.

The problem is that because of these arguments in every election campaign. We are 'fulfilling our civic duty', and perpetuating the problem instead of allowing it to be solved. The reason we are in the current situation is the feeling (unjustified, constantly pumped into us by stakeholders and vested interests) that the situation is now acute. The security and social threats are not fading away (which shows that our elections were not really useful, and were not important, even in the short term). If we give in to these lies, and continue to "fulfill our civic duty" and vote for the lesser evil, we will never be able to begin to truly improve the system.

The conclusion is that this very desire, to save what is possible in the short term, is what causes the problems in the long term. The great absurdity with regard to the considerations of the lesser evil, beyond their cost in the long term, is that they almost always work out in the short term as well. The candidate we chose so that an unknown would not come to make agreements/start wars, etc., does exactly what an unknown would do ("Things seen from here are not seen from there," did we already say?). There is no difference between them. So even the short-term risk expected in voting for another candidate is not too great. At most, Bibi/Barak will be elected instead of Barak/Bibi. What is the difference between them anyway?

My words do not necessarily mean that it is advisable to abstain from participating in the elections. I only mean to say that the policy of the lesser evil should not be practiced. Anyone who does not sufficiently identify with any of the existing forces should abstain from voting, and not vote for the lesser evil. He should fulfill his civic duty and not go to vote. In this way, he will express his disgust for all the candidates together, and thus the percentage of votes in the elections will reach 10%. This will have a much greater impact than voting for the lesser evil, which has no impact at all. This is abstention out of civic concern, and a willingness to pay the prices, and not abstention out of indifference as those with vested interests always portray it.

When there are 90% of the votes available, this calls for many new forces to compete for them and offer their wares in the evolutionary market. It is not worth shying away from voting for a new force, which is not one of the existing forces, if it seems worthy to us. A policy of voting for the optimal (and not for the least bad), and abstaining if necessary, will create a space into which additional forces can enter and put themselves up for election. Perhaps they too, or some of them, will fail. Then others will take their place. If a prime minister has failed, he must be replaced, even if the other candidate seems to us even more threatening and problematic. It is usually still worth paying the price for the long term.

It should be added, to avoid any doubt, that we are not concerned here with utopia, but at most with progress towards it. Perfect candidates should not be expected, and I do not intend in my words to rule out any compromise whatsoever. That is truly childish. What I mean is that everyone should vote for a worthy candidate, not necessarily just a perfect candidate who fits my agenda with absolute precision.

Here arises the question of the line separating the lesser evil in this sense and the lesser evil in the sense I have described so far. If compromise is permitted and necessary, does this not mean that one should vote for the lesser evil? This is of course a matter that is very difficult to define, and everyone must draw their own lines according to their understanding. It seems to me that a possible criterion for distinguishing between the situations is that if someone has failed or is corrupt, they should be replaced without considering the question of who their replacement is (in my opinion, Ahmed Tibi should come up instead of Olmert and Barak). In addition, and perhaps this is a more general criterion, we must consider whether there is a chance that the candidate we vote for will promote something positive? In other words, am I voting for him, or is voting for him only so that his competitor will not come? In the second case, I think it is better not to vote at all.

Actually, this is the lesser evil, isn't it?…