WHY I DIDN'T VOTE

Yesterday, along with others that I know of and numerous more that I don't, I chose to exercise my right not to participate in the South African elections.

This choice attracted fervent criticism from some, and a number of accusations were levelled against me. Now, as much as I don't owe anyone an explanation for the choice that I made, a choice which for all of us is an inherently personal one, I have no desire to fend off countless interrogations in the days or weeks to come. So, herewith follows a brief summary of my feelings on the matter, in response to criticisms directed towards me.

Criticism Number 1
I'm too young to remember the horrors of apartheid. If my own life and the lives of those I care about were more directly impacted by injustice, I would never exhibit the kind of ignorance and selfish irresponsibility that I apparently have by not voting.
Now, I won't bother explaining my own experiences with apartheid, which I recall all too vividly. However, I know people who have lived significantly longer than I have and who have participated as much as anyone in the struggle for equality - people who, like me, have chosen not to participate in an electoral process which they have become disillusioned with. These people, like myself, cannot and will not in good conscience vote for the lesser of evils, and reserve the right to withhold their vote until such time that a choice exists that they feel they can lend their support to with peace of mind. To suggest that every one of these people is ignorant of the past or minimally affected by the horrors of apartheid, is ridiculous and insulting.

Criticism Number 2
Given the fact that I've opted not to vote, I automatically lose the right to voice any objection in the face of political corruption, or any dissatisfaction in the face of poor service delivery in my community. Neither do I have any place in a functioning democracy.
Now, let's reduce the scope of the situation from voting on a national or provincial level, to say, voting for who heads up a household, for example. Now, if I was part of a family, and two people were running for the position of heading up the home, it may just so happen that I have no faith in the integrity of either person to run the affairs of the home selflessly and fairly. For this reason, I refuse to support either of them with my vote, and opt out of the process. Does this mean that I can no longer disagree with either of them? I think not. One could argue (to some degree) that you lose the right to object to the conduct of the person/party you voted for and supported, but given that I have not expressed my support for either candidate, I reserve my democratic right to express indignation in the face of any corruption, thank you very much.
Furthermore, using the example of the household, I play my part and pull my weight as much as anyone. I put in an honest days work and do my share of the chores. I contribute to the marketplace. I pay my share of the rent (or taxes in the bigger picture). To suggest that I and others like me have no say in the life of the household/country...equally ridiculous I think.

Criticism Number 3
I am spitting in the faces and on the legacies of those who sacrificed their lives and well-being so that I could have the right to vote and enjoy the freedoms that I now enjoy.
This one I find particularly insulting. If this is the case, I (along with the aforementioned individuals who are older, wiser and more selfless than myself) am spitting in the faces of friends and loved ones. People who sacrificed in the struggle against apartheid did so in order to secure a society in which freedom of speech and expression are cherished and guarded - a society in which people are regarded as equals. That is part of what the South African constitution is supposed to guarantee, at least theoretically if not always in practise. That includes the freedom to opt out of a voting process if I, for whatever reason and based on whatever research I've done or attitudes I hold to, feel led by my conscience to do so. Claiming a belief in freedom of speech and expression is meaningless when we only respect the freedom of other people's choices when those choices or viewpoints happen to agree with our own. In the words of the American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, political commentator and activist, Noam Chomsky, "If we don't believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

What we're talking about here are matters of conscience. There are no right or wrong views, only personal opinions and choices. Sure, some opinions mirror popular public opinion more than others, but that makes them no more legitimate. To engage in a discussion on this matter thinking that the person who doesn't share your view is simply wrong/ignorant/narrow-minded/whatever, is an exercise in futility.

Now, you may not agree with or understand my choice. That is fine. You may not care to either. That too, is fine. But what you have to do is respect my right and freedom to make whatever choice I care to. Why? Because if you don't, any talk on your part about the value of liberty and democracy becomes laughable.

I have as much right as anyone else in this country to arrive at the conclusions and hold to the convictions that I currently have and do, without being condescended to or attacked. Isn't that what living in a so-called free society is supposed to be all about?