(Choosing based on a Multifaceted Assessment)
I just finished watching both the Soho and the Abunda interviews with the Philippine presidentiables, conducted in January 2022; still available to watch on YouTube.
After listening intently to the thoughts and ideas of every candidate, I tended to lean towards those who were assertive, focused, firm, certain, tactful, nonreligious,* and amoral* about their stand on the issues raised by the interviewer and who are ready to move forward without the need to get stuck in the ugliness and stigma of the past.
However, if honesty, integrity, and family background should be factored in–as well as their respective political alliances, then that changes the whole thing. Meaning, smartness and communication skills should not be the only considerations.
We should choose leaders who have the qualities I cited above–not only the smarts and the intellect but also a reliable and untainted personality and sense of character.
Followers, on the other hand, should be conscientious, logical, discerning, objective, practical, fair, unemotional, and unvindictive.
Having said all these, it will still depend on the individual voter whom she would pick among the list of candidates.
Nonreligious and amoral leaders are those who do not impose their own beliefs, religion, and morality on others and who practice fairness and neutrality in their opinions and decisions as leaders of especially large groups of people.
Dignified leaders are those who are honest, transparent about their dealings, and remorseful about whatever mistakes–either past or recent–that they had committed, been involved in, or directly associated with.
At the end of the selection, one’s decision should be based on what will benefit the country and the general population–both the majority and the minority.
And at the end of the election, whoever wins, wins. Acknowledge and support the winners, but never stop to be vigilant and critical.