It is good to cause people to beware of what to do when the time comes. Bu the questions need asking are:
“How do you want people to vote? Is the voting a new concept?” Do you not want voters to accept what you term as bribery of any form from intending candidates or their associates so as to have an influence on their voting choices? Otherwise to what extent can you campaign against possible bribery? What do you compare our one-talk system with, in situations like the general elections? What amount and type of gifts should be allowed and what type is disallowed during the campaigning period?
Yes, legally, there has been a certain amount being provided for under the law, but who is to control or monitor this piece of legislation?
There is no bribery in our one-talk system.
People do not vote because the candidate stands for national developmental issues; rather people vote in a candidate because of “blood ties” and possible social and economic spin-offs.
It is what they can get from that candidate that matters, than what the nation can get or can provide.
Now there is a lot of talking going on about unemployment. This is because there is no sizable and tangible economic development undertaking by the government.
The few early ones were only brought in by the less educated leaders, but men of wisdom in their time, in contrast to the many so-called qualified people this country now has, with nothing or very little economic development is seen to be delivered by the government of the day which comprises some of the well-educated people with Masters and PhD qualifications.
It is not necessary that the highest qualified are good leaders especially in politics.
The comrades in the Opposition bench in the current parliament are now seen to be slinging mud at each other over an issue of their own making whilst in power in the past, rather than talking about developmental issues, is a classic example. We still have a long way to go.
The mentality now is as I am secured, the rest paddle your own canoe.
For someone to secure a seat in Parliament for the four-year term, he must do a lot giving either from his own resources or that of the public, the government, wilfully and wrongly of course.
To get a free and fair election is good but a fare-fetched concept unless there is a drastic change in attitude and in the had-out mentality, now being practiced by some MPs and the expected voters.
This is what the advocacy for free and fair election should be focusing on by educating people to think rationally and nationally.
A change in attitude and in peoples’ mentality should see a difference in the coming general elections. What do you think?