THE POLITICS OF CHOICE: Democracy, Disagreement and the Ethics of Public Engagement
By Cliff Stanley
“Democracy is not the absence of disagreement; it is the discipline of living together despite our disagreements.”
Politics is, by nature, a contest over ideas, interests, values and the direction of society. In a democracy, citizens will inevitably disagree about who should lead, which policies should be pursued, and what constitutes good governance. That disagreement is not itself a crisis. In fact, political pluralism assumes that reasonable citizens can arrive at different conclusions about public questions.
The real danger begins when political disagreement becomes personal hostility.
Support Without Hatred
There is nothing wrong with supporting your preferred candidate. Support them. Campaign for them. Explain their vision. Defend their record. Examine their policies. Persuade other citizens. Tell people why you believe they deserve their confidence.
But supporting your candidate should not require you to hate another candidate.
Politics should be a contest of ideas, not a war against personalities.
A mature political campaign should answer a simple question: What are you offering the people?
If your candidate has a compelling vision for education, explain it. If they have a better strategy for healthcare, demonstrate it. If they have a credible economic programme, present the evidence. If their record demonstrates competence, let the record speak. If they intend to reform institutions, explain how those reforms would work, what they would cost, and what measurable outcomes citizens should expect.
This is the substance of democratic competition.
Unfortunately, political communication can sometimes become dominated by the attempt to discredit opponents rather than explain alternatives. Social media has intensified this tendency by rewarding emotional reactions, simplified narratives and highly shareable claims.
But virality is not evidence, and repetition is not verification.
A political claim does not become true because thousands of people have forwarded it. A rumour does not become a fact because it supports our preferred candidate. And an opponent does not become incompetent, corrupt or evil merely because we disagree with that person’s politics.
The intellectually responsible citizen must therefore ask: What is the evidence? What is the source? Can the claim be independently verified? What is the context? What does the available record actually show?
This is especially important in Nigeria, where political conversations often occur within intense partisan, ethnic, religious and regional environments. The challenge is not to eliminate political identity but to prevent political identity from becoming a substitute for evidence.
Acknowledging Good Works Is Not Political Betrayal
One of the most troubling features of partisan politics is the assumption that acknowledging something positive done by a political opponent amounts to supporting that opponent.
It does not.
A government can make mistakes and still accomplish worthwhile things. An incumbent can have weaknesses and still leave behind useful projects. An opposition politician can raise legitimate concerns and still have policies with which citizens disagree.
Political judgment becomes distorted when we believe that everything associated with “our side” must be good and everything associated with “their side” must be bad.
That is not critical thinking. It is partisan absolutism.
A citizen should be able to say: “I disagree with this administration’s policy, but I acknowledge the benefit of this particular programme.” Or: “I support this candidate, but I do not agree with everything he or she says.”
That intellectual independence is not weakness. It is precisely what democratic citizenship should cultivate.
The Voter Is Not Political Property
Perhaps we need to recover a simple democratic truth: politicians do not own voters.
Citizens are not permanent property of political parties, religious communities, ethnic groups, regions, personalities or political movements.
A citizen may vote for one party today and another tomorrow. A person may support a candidate in one election and reject that candidate in another. Someone may admire a politician’s economic policies while disagreeing with their position on another matter.
That freedom is legitimate.
The ballot is ultimately an expression of individual political judgment.
Therefore, political persuasion should not become political coercion. We should persuade with arguments, not intimidation; with evidence, not misinformation; with vision, not hatred.
The democratic question should not be: “How do I force everyone to agree with me?”
It should be: “How do I make the strongest case for my position while respecting the freedom of others to reach a different conclusion?”
That distinction is fundamental.
Democracy Needs Informed Citizens, Not Merely Enthusiastic Partisans
Nigeria’s electoral experience provides another reason for this conversation.
INEC’s official figures show that presidential election turnout declined substantially over successive election cycles, from 53.7% in 2011 to 43.6% in 2015, 34.7% in 2019 and 26.7% in 2023. At the same time, Nigeria had more than 93 million registered voters for the 2023 general election.
The contrast is important. A growing electorate does not automatically produce greater electoral participation.
This means that the health of democracy cannot be measured only by the number of political parties, campaign rallies or social media arguments. It must also be considered in terms of citizens’ willingness and capacity to participate meaningfully in public life.
This is why political communication matters.
When politics becomes a permanent theatre of insults, propaganda, misinformation and personal attacks, citizens can become cynical. Some withdraw completely; others retreat into partisan echo chambers where they consume only information that confirms what they already believe.
Democracy requires something more demanding: citizens who are willing to think.
Read the manifesto. Examine the record. Ask who benefits from a policy. Ask how it will be funded. Examine the evidence behind campaign promises. Compare what candidates say with what they have previously done. Listen beyond political slogans.
And where credible evidence changes your understanding, have the courage to change your mind.
Changing one’s mind in response to evidence is not political weakness. It is intellectual integrity.
A Christian Cannot Separate Political Engagement from Ethical Responsibility
For Christians, this conversation carries an additional theological dimension.
Christian public engagement begins with the recognition that every human being bears the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27). Political opponents therefore remain human beings whose dignity does not disappear because they support a different party or candidate.
This has profound implications for political communication.
The person who votes differently from me is not my enemy. The politician I criticise is not beyond accountability, but neither is that person beyond human dignity. The supporter of another candidate is not necessarily ignorant, wicked or compromised. They may simply have examined the same political reality and arrived at a different conclusion.
James 1:19 provides a powerful ethic for public discourse: believers should be “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.”
Imagine what Nigerian political discourse would look like if this principle shaped our conversations. It would not eliminate disagreement. It would improve the manner in which disagreement is expressed.
Paul’s instruction in Ephesians 4:15 to speak “the truth in love” also provides an important framework. Truth without love can become cruelty; love without truth can become sentimentalism.
Public engagement requires both moral courage and moral restraint.
Christianity therefore does not require believers to abandon political convictions. Rather, it challenges Christians to bring their convictions into public life through truthfulness, justice, humility, peace and respect for human dignity.
Love of neighbour becomes difficult when the neighbour votes differently. Jesus’ command to love one’s neighbour becomes particularly challenging in an electoral environment.
It is relatively easy to love the neighbour who supports my candidate. The harder question is whether I can disagree with the neighbour who supports another candidate and still treat that person with dignity.
That is where political theology becomes practical.
If my Christianity disappears whenever politics becomes contentious, then perhaps I need to examine whether my political identity has become stronger than my theological identity.
Political parties are temporary. Governments are temporary. Candidates are temporary. But the neighbour remains.
The church, therefore, should not become merely an extension of partisan politics. Its public witness should be capable of speaking truth to power regardless of who occupies political office.
Where government performs well, acknowledge it. Where government fails, question it. Where opposition raises legitimate concerns, listen. Where opposition makes false claims, challenge them.
The standard should not be “Who said it?” The better questions are: “Is it true, is it just, and does it contribute to the common good?”
We Can Disagree and Still Build Together
One of the greatest mistakes we can make is to imagine that every political disagreement must end a personal relationship.
It should not.
Your neighbour may support a different candidate. Your colleague may belong to another political party. Your friend may hold a completely different view of government. Even within the same family, citizens may vote differently.
And yet, after the election, you will still need one another.
The road belongs to all of us. The school belongs to all of us. The hospital belongs to all of us. The economy belongs to all of us. The future belongs to all of us.
This is why politics must ultimately be subordinated to the common good.
Political competition asks, “Who should lead?” Democratic citizenship must ask a larger question: “What kind of society are we building together?”
Let Your Candidate Stand on Their Own
If you genuinely believe your candidate is capable of providing better leadership, then make the case. Present the evidence. Explain the vision. Discuss the policies. Show the track record. Identify the problems. Offer practical solutions. Tell citizens what will be different.
But do not assume that the only way to elevate your candidate is to destroy another person.
You do not have to pull someone down to lift your candidate up.
A strong political argument should have enough intellectual substance to stand without character assassination. A strong candidate should be able to receive scrutiny. A strong campaign should be able to survive fact-checking. A strong political movement should be able to persuade without intimidation. And a strong citizen should be able to say, “This is my choice, but I respect your right to make yours.”
The Politics We Need
Perhaps the politics Nigeria needs is not a politics without disagreement but a politics with ethical disagreement.
We need citizens who can challenge without insulting. We need politicians who can compete without dehumanising. We need journalists who can investigate without becoming propaganda instruments. We need religious leaders who can provide moral guidance without turning the pulpit into a partisan platform. We need young people who will participate rather than surrender their political agency to political godfathers, social media influencers or partisan propaganda.
And we need citizens who understand that democracy is not simply the freedom to speak; it is also the responsibility to speak truthfully.
As we approach another electoral cycle, Nigerians will make different choices. Some choices will be informed by ideology, others by performance, personality, local experience, party affiliation, policy preferences or personal conviction.
That diversity is part of democratic life.
We should therefore resist the temptation to demand uniformity where democracy permits diversity.
Choose your candidate. Study the issues. Defend your convictions. Ask difficult questions. Demand accountability. But allow other citizens the same freedom.
Because at the end of the day, elections will come and go. Political parties will change. Candidates will rise and fall. Governments will be formed and eventually replaced.
But Nigeria will remain.
And the people with whom we are arguing today will still be our neighbours tomorrow.
Our political differences should therefore never become greater than our shared responsibility to build a just, peaceful and flourishing society.
For those of us who approach public life from a Christian perspective, the standard is even higher: to pursue truth without hatred, justice without vengeance, conviction without arrogance, and political engagement without losing sight of the dignity of the human person.
Nigeria does not merely need people who know how to win political arguments. Nigeria needs citizens who know how to disagree and still build together.
“The highest expression of democratic maturity is not the ability to make everyone agree with you; it is the ability to defend what you believe, respect those who disagree, submit your claims to evidence, and remain committed to the common good.”
May God bless Nigeria with leaders who understand that public office is a trust, citizens who understand that political freedom is a responsibility, and a generation that will choose its leaders with wisdom rather than hatred.
Cliff Stanley
Political Scientist | Public Theologian
cliffstanley3@gmail.com
07032826319
