The freedom of choice is not treason.
Come along with me.
As another election season draws near in Nigeria, familiar emotions are beginning to rise. Some are angry. Some are anxious. Some are hopeful. Some are afraid. None of these is strange in a democratic contest, especially in a society where politics is not merely about governance but also about identity, survival, memory, disappointment, and aspiration.
However, there is a disturbing tendency that must be interrogated before it becomes normalised again.
Some people now speak as if political disagreement is betrayal. They curse those who disagree with them. They insult those who refuse to support their preferred candidates. They label others as ignorant, wicked, tribalistic, compromised, or enemies of progress simply because those people have chosen differently.
That is not democracy.
It may be passion. It may be frustration. It may be political anxiety. It may even be the product of genuine pain. But it is not a democracy.
At the centre of democracy is the freedom of choice.
The majority may determine the winner of an election, but it does not own the voter’s conscience. The majority may decide the outcome, but it cannot erase the legitimacy of dissenting choices. Democracy derives its operational outcomes from numbers, but its moral legitimacy derives from citizens’ freedom to choose without coercion, intimidation, abuse, or fear.
This is where some people appear to be confusing two related but distinct concepts: choice and majority.
The majority is important in democracy because elections must produce outcomes. A society cannot remain in perpetual disagreement without a mechanism for decision-making. Therefore, democracy provides a process through which votes are counted, winners are declared, and authority is transferred or retained.
But before the majority emerges, individual citizens must first be free to make their choices.
There can be no meaningful majority where choice has been bullied into silence. There can be no democratic legitimacy where people are cursed into conformity. There can be no true representation where citizens are emotionally blackmailed into supporting a candidate they do not believe in.
A majority produced through free choice is democracy.
A majority demanded through intimidation, which is mob pressure, is anti-democratic.
Let us not forget that the essence of adult suffrage is anchored on the principle that the voter owns their vote. The voter may choose wisely. The voter may choose poorly. The voter may choose based on ideology, ethnicity, religion, class, performance, loyalty, fear, hope, personal benefit, or even mere sentiment. One may disagree with the basis of that choice. One may criticize the reasoning behind it. One may campaign vigorously against it.
But one cannot legitimately deny the person the right to make it.
There is no democratic rule that says a citizen must support the candidate whom others have certified as the only acceptable option. There is no democratic law that requires a voter to adopt another voter’s anger, urgency, or conviction. There is no moral commandment in democracy that turns political disagreement into treason.
A citizen who chooses differently has not betrayed democracy; rather, they have exercised it.
This was the point I made before the 2023 elections, when I argued that the concept of the “right candidate” is not the concern of democracy. Democracy is not designed to impose one universally accepted candidate on all citizens. Rather, it provides a process through which competing preferences are expressed, aggregated, and converted into political authority.
That process may not always produce what any individual considers the best outcome.
That is the dilemma.
It is not a problem that can be solved once and for all. It is an ongoing difficulty that must be managed.
If democracy were merely about identifying the right person, elections would be unnecessary. A committee of wise people could simply sit somewhere, examine credentials, assess character, evaluate competence, and announce the best candidate. But democracy does not work that way. It allows the people, with all their wisdom and errors, hopes and fears, prejudices and aspirations, to choose.
That freedom is both the beauty and the burden of democracy.
The crusader wants urgent change. The tradition bearer fears disruption. The disappointed voter wants punishment for failure. The cautious voter fears experimentation. The young may want a break from the past. The old may fear the uncertainty of the future. The urban voter may prioritise efficiency and reform. The rural voter may prioritize access and familiarity.
Each may have a reason.
Each may also have a blind spot.
That is why political persuasion remains legitimate. Campaign. Canvass. Mobilise. Argue. Write. Speak. Organise. Present facts. Expose contradictions. Defend your candidate. Criticise another candidate. Ask hard questions. Demand accountability. Use every lawful and reasonable instrument of democratic engagement.
But do not curse people because they disagree with you.
Do not assume that your political choice is the only evidence of intelligence. Do not turn your preferred candidate into a compulsory article of faith. Do not transform democracy into a moral tribunal where everyone who votes differently is condemned as foolish or evil.
The ballot is not a curse word.
The ballot belongs to the voter.
To disagree with a voter’s choice is legitimate. To campaign against that choice is legitimate. To question the assumptions behind that choice is legitimate. But to treat that choice as treason is to misunderstand the very foundation of democratic participation.
One may appeal to the voter, but one must not seek to own the voter. One may persuade the voter, but one must not force the voter into submission by insult. One may disagree with the voter, but one must not deny the voter the dignity of choice.
We see this often on social media, where a citizen’s declared voting preference is sometimes met not with counterargument but with insults, curses, ethnic suspicion, or accusations of betrayal.
Before anyone screams that some choices have consequences, yes, they do.
Democracy does not exempt citizens from the consequences of collective decisions. A wrong choice may produce hardship. A sentimental choice may produce disappointment. A careless choice may deepen national problems. But the answer to that is not to abolish freedom of choice through abuse. The answer is better persuasion, better organisation, better political education, better candidates, better institutions, and better civic engagement.
If a person is truly uninformed, inform the person.
If a person is misled, engage the person.
If a person is afraid, understand the fear.
If a person is angry, listen carefully.
If a person is cynical, ask what produced the cynicism.
But when the first response is insult, the possibility of persuasion is already shrinking.
Politics is not evangelism by force. Democracy is not a congregation where dissenters are excommunicated. Elections are not wars in which citizens who choose differently must be treated as conquered enemies.
A society that cannot tolerate political difference cannot successfully practise democracy.
This is even more important in a country like Nigeria, where pluralism is not an abstract theory. Nigeria is a complex society of many ethnicities, religions, regions, histories, grievances, and political memories. In such a society, democratic maturity requires more than enthusiasm for one’s preferred candidate. It requires the discipline to accept that other citizens may see the same country differently.
They may be wrong.
You may also be wrong.
That possibility is one of the reasons democracy insists on regular elections. Today’s majority may become tomorrow’s minority. Today’s opposition may become tomorrow’s government. Today’s celebrated movement may become tomorrow’s establishment. Today’s angry crusaders may become tomorrow’s defensive tradition bearers.
Power rotates. Sentiments shift. Alliances collapse. New grievances emerge.
Therefore, anyone who destroys the principle of choice today because it favours his side may need that same principle tomorrow when the political tide changes.
The management of democratic dilemmas requires humility.
No candidate is beyond questioning. No party is beyond rejection. No movement is beyond criticism. No voter is beyond persuasion. But no citizen should be bullied out of the right to choose.
The duty of the politically passionate person is not to curse the voter. It is to convince the voter.
The duty of the advocate is not to intimidate. It is to persuade.
The duty of the democrat is not to demand uniformity. It is to defend the process that allows different choices to contend peacefully.
At the end of the day, democracy may reward the majority with victory, but it must protect the minority in dignity. It may count votes collectively, but it must receive them individually. It may produce winners and losers, but it must not produce citizens who are afraid to express their lawful preferences.
So, as the political temperature rises again, let us be careful.
Market your candidate.
Promote your party.
Defend your preference.
Challenge opposing views.
But do not pretend that democracy has failed simply because others refuse to choose as you do.
The freedom of choice is not obliterated by emotional outbursts, curses, insults, or political intimidation.
Again, the voter is not under an obligation to agree with you.
At best, convince or “confuse” the voter to accept your choice, though the voter also has the right to reject your overtures. The beauty of it is that whatever choice the voter makes, no matter how it turns out, the voter should be satisfied that they freely exercised a democratic right.
Democracy is not the death of choice.
It is the protection of it.
Therefore, freedom of choice is not treason.
It is the soul of democracy.
Bolutife Oluwadele is a public policy scholar, author, and governance commentator based in Canada. He is also a chartered accountant and certified fraud examiner. Email: [email protected]
