Now there is a lot of talk about abstention. In fact, all the parties participating in the process of the upcoming elections on July 23 declare themselves harmed by this possibility. But the biggest victim is the system; it is democracy itself that is the main victim of abstention. Refusing to define the popular will is a serious irresponsibility; it delegitimizes criticism, assumes the cost of political inefficiencies, makes indifference a manifestation of intellectual poverty. Abstention is the refuge of gratuitous and unsupportive arrogance.
Voting is more than a right; it is also and above all a duty. In fact, when you try to define democracy, you end up emphasizing that voting, being able to vote and going to vote is the substance of democracy. And accepting the results, respecting them, is the servitude that accompanies the privilege of voting. Go vote and accept the result, that’s the point! This does not limit the ground of discrepancy; on the contrary, it identifies the value of the agreement and the red line of the impossible agreement. Political pluralism is a fundamental value of a democratic system, but this recognition must not be confused with an unjustified obligation to build agreements that put at risk the bases of freedom and the rights of citizens.
That’s why going to vote is always so important. This time, too. Many bad moments in the history of democratic systems find their origin in irresponsible abstentions. First, indifference is expressed; then the consequences are paid. Abstention is silent; the street is noisy. But many of those who criticize the noise have made it their own with the silence of their abstention.
Certainly, it must be recognized that sometimes, abstention has a certain charm. “They will do what they want”, and “everyone is equal”. This is often heard, but it is not true. They will do what they can and they are not all the same, it is much more true. But what is even more obvious is that the abstention gives those who will interpret it in their favor an argument to do, really, what suits them far beyond the exact weight of their representative force. There are many democratic ways to demand programmatic consistency from elected officials. Claim that what has been promised is done. Or, above all, not to do what he assured himself would never be done. Only those who vote have democratic legitimacy to criticize the inconsistency of those who stray from their programmatic commitments.
Vote and accept the result. The latter is sometimes difficult, because there are results that you don’t like at all. But they must be accepted. The results legitimize majorities, delimit oppositions, define the framework of possible agreements. Accepting does not mean sharing; it means, simply, to recognize the legitimating value of the vote. From here on, the government-opposition game is open. This cannot ignore, from the deepest discrepancy and, even, disagreement, that the parliamentary majority has behind it a majority of the popular vote. But the government cannot transgress the bases of the system or forget to recognize that pluralism is a requirement of democratic coexistence.
In short, going to vote is, from the outset, an obligation that strengthens the system. Abstention weakens it. Abstention never wins; going to vote allows you to win or, in any case, to bear witness to the political vitality of a society. Acceptance is the expression of a victory. Or, in any case, the satisfaction of democratic consolidation. It all starts by going to vote; then comes the democratic greatness of accepting the results.
