End of opinion-based voting or of opinion itself?

You've probably heard some political scientist say that there's no longer room for the so-called opinion vote, that it has lost ground to corporate voting and leadership voting, not to mention the celebrities and trinkets that parties use in every election to play the shameful role of mere vote-getters.

Voting for celebrities and charlatans is something we're already familiar with. We know it harms not only their own voters, but society as a whole, since those elected in this way almost always serve their single term as pawns of the party bosses, those old war foxes. In this case, contrary to what was touted in the last campaign, things can always get worse. And they have been getting worse.

Corporate voting, on the other hand, is obtained through the support of certain entities, notably unions and churches, which take advantage of tax exemptions and all sorts of legal benefits to pour almost inexhaustible resources into benefiting those who, being elected through this scheme, will work for it throughout their term.

And what about leadership votes? It's nothing more than a euphemism for the modern version of the old vote-buying. To explain better: in its most orthodox form, the hard-earned money from our taxes is used in agreements, amendments, and transfers to buy votes from entities whose leaders were handpicked to be campaign workers for their political patrons. Like what you see? There's more.

In the most unorthodox form of leadership voting, that is, cash in exchange for votes, enormous sums are carefully channeled to leaders who exert influence over a specific group of people, such as owners of samba schools, presidents of neighborhood associations, leaders of small churches, etc. It is true that, at least in São Paulo, almost no money is given directly to the voter, but rather to the leader who suggests to the follower who to vote for in each election. The volume of resources required for this type of vote is staggering, and always obtained and distributed "under the table."

So, where does opinion-based voting fit into all of this? Isn't there already room for candidates who campaign exclusively on the basis of defending principles and values, without buying votes or acting as lobbyists for specific groups? For opinion-based voting to exist, there must first and foremost be an opinion at all. There must be politicians who dare to genuinely have an opinion, defending it coherently and consistently, without being swayed by polls or current trends simply to opportunistically garner votes.

Politics is full of umbrella politicians who seek votes from all schools of thought, without worrying about maintaining any consistency of ideas and proposals. The important thing is to get elected. What they will do the next day doesn't matter. They don't take a stand on anything. They don't have a defined opinion on any subject that the media hasn't already set the agenda for, and they don't care about completely changing direction if the conveniences of the moment demand it.

Ideological policing and the dictatorship of political correctness also do not encourage more politicians to risk having an opinion, especially a controversial one. They know that, by taking a stand, they will be the target of angry attacks, and they will have to respond to these. You yourself, dear reader, who have dared to defend an opinion different from the average, must have felt firsthand how difficult it is to do so.

It takes courage to take a stand these days. Courage not to be like a dead leaf in the wind, drifting in a different direction every hour. Courage to defend firm and clear positions, impersonally and with sound reasoning, lest one always be subject to the opportunism of increasingly spurious, deceitful, and venal political alliances and agreements.

The lack of opinion, the incoherence, and the cowardice of these "gelatinous" politicians end up dampening the spirit and capacity for indignation of the voter, who, succumbing to the thought that they are all the same, no longer cares about voting with quality. People vote for the "least bad," because, in theory, they are all the same.

Having an opinion and defending it, with consistency and transparency, also means, to some extent, accepting the loss of votes. If a politician does not accept losing votes, or does not conceive of the possibility of losing an election as part of the democratic process, in order to preserve dignity and consistency, they are already halfway to reigning in the realm of indecision and demagoguery.

On the other hand, the consistency and coherence of a politician's opinion will always be measured by their behavior. By the compatibility of rhetoric with practice. By the ability to take a stand and sometimes contradict corporatism, even within their own party. To contradict common sense when it goes against their personal convictions. To value good conduct, without neglecting the quality and credibility of their opinion.

A candidate's commitment should always be to act in accordance with the values ​​they claim to defend, otherwise, with each new challenge, they will find an excuse or pretext to compromise or change course. As the recent film about Margaret Thatcher shows, there are times when intransigence is a virtue, the best virtue, and the current sad political landscape demands an uncompromising attitude in defending principles and values.

Society suffers from a scarcity of true leaders who behave like statesmen, capable of inspiring, exciting, and guiding their voters in a deliberately chosen direction. Without this, there is truly no room for opinion-based voting.

Ricardo Salles is a lawyer and president of the Endireita Brasil Movement.