Fatalism, responsibility and moral luck

Life is about choices. Some good, some bad, many so-so. Voting in elections is part of the choices we make in our lives. There are two attitudes that influence how we make our choices. One is the idea that the world is too big to be influenced by us. Or another, we are too small to influence the course of things. The other is the idea that we make our choices based on experience. The electoral vote can not be influenced by the first way because it is fatalistic. The vote counts, but only the vote that is done consciously. Just imagine the bridge Katembe ready and imagine yourself jumping from up there in the middle and ask if it was a good idea or not to jump. Too late. This is the fatalistic vote. It is unfortunately the message that many people tried to pass along the campaign trail. Vote in opposition, no matter what their program and suitability, everything is better than the current arrogance. Or, vote in continuity, no matter your schedule and suitability, everything is better than the unknown.

No way out of this false dilemma. It is the conscious vote. Only this conscious vote will require a lot of us, above all reasoning. Will be necessary to think very carefully before voting. Fortunately I can help it. Notice, however, that my help is biased. I am the current government and its candidate. This will transpire this "help". But the base to vote for the opposition if my reasons are not convincing will. Therefore, the help is biased, but the game is clean. Who continues to read and is a supporter of the opposition does so at their own risk. Who ever decided to vote for continuity is better not continue to read not to change your mind. The reading will be more profitable for the enlightened undecided and critical capacity. It is for that vast majority of writing.

I need to clarify two major misconceptions before entering the subject properly. The first misconception concerns the change of government. Some say that you can not change the government because the opposition has no experience in government and will put the country upside down. This is a voting case, therefore, of little use. Even the direction of the central market of Maputo could form a government without major problems. If you have sense of responsibility that weighs on it will know to look the best advice especially as the main guarantor of continuity is the state apparatus, which, in principle, is nonpartisan. This works even better if the state apparatus is functional. Ours is not, but there are several ways to put it to work. If you work or not, that is another matter. Moreover, these days much of what makes a good or bad governance has little impact on the success, or failure, of the same governance.

The only difference between an experienced government but disoriented, and a potential government without experience is that the probability of making the same mistakes, or worse, is greater in the latter in order to give the vote to the latter is, and will always , a risky action. The problem here does not arise in terms of the country. Mozambique will not disappear from the map just because an experienced government directs their destinations. The risks are the individual level. Many choose the new in the hope that your life improves when an election what really counts is not to lose what one has, or ever could. This risk is especially higher among those who have nothing (come on, young people without jobs or housing) who must rely on the prospect of having to once again be in the rear on the waiting list for a better life simply because the young have their preferred and need to feed them. Or the old need to continue to meet who provided services. Here the question is to decide which is the longest list.

Another misconception concerns the alternation. Which is part of the democratic game and this is true it is said. But that does not mean it has to be done mechanically. The alternation is only a possibility in a democratic system. It is, in fact, their existence as potentiality that gives strength to democracy. It is a kind of "joker". I lived 19 years in a one-party state in Germany (I mean the state of Bavaria, whose capital is Munich) where all that time (and in the previous 30 years) has been in power only one party. Even now continues the same party in power, albeit in coalition with a minority partner. The problems that are associated with Frelimo - arrogance, partisanship of the state, corruption, opportunism youth who join the party as a means of social mobility - are present in Bavaria. Bavaria is one of the wealthiest states of Germany despite all these problems. It can be said, of course, Mozambique, with Frelimo, was not rich, but this is a difficult political argument to rebut (not because it is not possible, but because while there are people dying of hunger, not have housing or employment will always be easy to say that a government does nothing). I repeat: change for change is not part of the democratic game. Change to change, yes. But as I will show later, the continuity can also be change. I will also suggest that the key ingredient to the success of Bavaria (and Scandinavia also had domination by a single party for a long time) was responsible citizenship and critical, yet something that we lack in Mozambique.

There are two problems that seem relevant: the problem of "status quo" and the problem of individual responsibility. The conscious vote constitutes the tension between these two problems. The problem of "status quo" is easy to treat.

Normally, people do not want to change (eg, electing another government) because they are afraid of the unknown. This has been one of the biggest fears that supporters of the current government try to instill people. In English there is even a term for this: it is better the devil you know than what we do not know (better the devil we know ...). This may not be the reason to vote for the current government. That would not be a conscious vote. The challenge is to see the extent to which voting in the current government can be a vote for change and that, interestingly, vote for the opposition may be a vote for continuity! This requires thinking beyond the electioneering game to confuse people with slogans.

Frelimo (MDM and it aligns the same pitch) promises real change. It's a new generation (young, educated and without outbursts of arrogance that he thinks that the people owe him something). Say it is the continuity and change is perfectly consistent in these circumstances. Nyusi, in the specific case of Frelimo, represents a major disruption of generation within his party. If he knows how to make the best use of this time of change (continuity) and capitalize all the experience in government that his party has can do miracles. The only one who dares to him he is not doing better than Guebuza, which in my opinion would not be tragic because Guebuza did much, if not more than their predecessors (even if they are from different eras). And as I wrote above, the most that can be expected from a change of government is not to be consumed by their own need to adapt and be able to maintain the level, thus ensuring the continuity that now criticizes in his opponents. Here also the decision seems easy to me. Who wants real change should not get carried away by the electoral arguments. There can be changes in the continuity as well as can be continuity in change. This is not for those who use the vote as an expression of protest. Then change issue does not arise.

The main problem, however, is the individual responsibility. Mozambique is not as it is only the fault of their rulers. Is as it is also the fault of its citizens. Are we doing Sorna at work; we who have soiled the streets; we pay bribes to everything public official; are we that we put this more wedges that; are we as members and party left the opportunists who define the political agenda; we who applaud when a political party takes up arms and attack the state that gave you the right to complain; us who miss our civic responsibility leaving us lead by emotions rather than cultivate the habit of coldly analyze national affairs; we who applaud when our national teams lose instead of giving them the care they deserve. In these circumstances, vote for the current government or the opposition will not be useful unless it is accompanied by a commitment to be better citizens. The countries of the world that are well deserved better politicians because through its civic engagement meant that they strove increasingly in the public service. Only authoritarian regimes (such as Chinese or Cuban for a while) is offering the well-being of the tray. In a democracy we have to demand and required to asumindo greater responsibility. And not just at election time, although this is a crucial moment.

So use the vote as a way of penalizing others for our own civic incompetence is a clear sign of lack of maturity. Who votes against a government because it did nothing for it reveals, in most cases, it is the main culprit for their circumstances. Also, you do not vote against an incompetent government by simple fear of the unknown also shows a lack of maturity. In philosophy there is an idea that has the name of moral luck. Was introduced by a British philosopher Bernard Williams name to account for a situation where someone is penalized harshly for something essentially random. Two people, for example, go to a spree and get drunk. Come out of the spree and each one takes his car and drives. An if-plating and deadly hits a person. Another well-plating, but not run over anyone. Both people drove drunk, but that which is mortally hit that will have a hard punishment. Nothing justifies the killing of a human being hit in terms of drinking. It is lack of accountability. But it takes luck to make it happen ourselves. And you need luck for that not to happen to us. Often when we penalize a government for mistakes that only he could have committed we are, at bottom, the reward for "default" moral lucky. Are no better. Were just lucky they did not hit anyone although they may also have driven drunk ...

But here I'm already in last campaign, so I end with vote of a conscious vote.(Dr.Elisio Macamo)