By Elin Brimheim Heinesen
With an election on the horizon, I want to ask some questions to all those planning to carry out their democratic duty and cast their vote. If you’re still undecided on who to vote for, these questions might help guide you to make the right choice. And if you have already made your decision, the question is not WHERE you will place your vote, but rather: Do you know WHY you’re placing your vote where you are? Have you considered why you’re choosing that particular politician?
“Yes, of course I’ve thought about it,” you may reply. But have you really? I want to delve a bit deeper and ask you to reflect on how you would answer the questions below. And please be completely honest when answering:
Why do you vote the way you do?
- Do you know the reason behind choosing a specific party?
- Or are you choosing the party out of habit without considering why? Perhaps because your family has always voted for that party? Or because you have always been accustomed to supporting one side against the other and don’t want to betray your team (almost like a loyal football fan supporting their team against another)?
- Do you believe that this is a good basis for making the right choice?
- Are you voting with your heart or with your head? In other words: Are you choosing a politician because you like them as a person (e.g. because you find them likeable, or because they are good at putting opponents in their place and appear strong, or because you know that other people you respect are voting for them)?
- Or are you choosing the politician because you know exactly what kind of policies they stand for?
- Do you know precisely what core areas the politician in question focuses on?
What can we all agree on?
If we momentarily set aside issues like left vs. right, secession vs. union, and secularization vs. religion as guiding principles, we can say that most politicians agree on and promise voters things such as:
- we should provide businesses with the best conditions to function as optimally as possible
- we should try to create more income streams for the economy
- we should strengthen the healthcare system and ensure better access to treatments for the sick and vulnerable
- we should enhance the elderly care sector and give pensioners better conditions
- we should take better care of our children and youth and strengthen the daycare sector
- we should improve the education system and educational opportunities
- we should take better care of the environment
- we should have a good and secure infrastructure with well-maintained roads, tunnels, and bridges
- we should have gender equality between men and women,
- etc.
Nearly all politicians agree on these points – and make promises to voters about this. It is difficult to disagree with this when politicians present themselves with such slogan arguments, which are almost self-evident. However, it says very little about the actual policies the politician will implement.
How does the politician intend to achieve these goals?
- Do you know exactly HOW the politician you’re voting for plans to achieve these goals?
- Do you know precisely which areas they prioritize over others?
- Have you investigated if they have specific proposals for policy solutions in each of these areas?
- Do you know how much they will allocate to these solutions?
- Do you know how they plan to finance these solutions?
- Do you know who the politician’s solutions will truly benefit?
- If the politician has been in parliament before, have they previously demonstrated through actions that they keep their promises?
- Can you be certain you are voting correctly if you do not know the answers to the above questions?
Does the politician focus on what we should NOT have rather than what we should have?
- Have you also listened closely to how the politician in question argues?
- Is there any actual, well-founded stance behind what they are saying?
- Or is it just talk, meant to hide the fact that they actually don’t know what they are talking about?
- What characterizes the politician’s argumentation?
- Does the politician mostly focus on what we should NOT have instead of what we SHOULD have?
- Does the politician talk a lot about everything we should fear and fight AGAINST?
- Or does the politician talk about visions – all the good things we should fight FOR and can achieve if we do this or that?
- Is it concrete political solutions that they talk most about?
- Or is it mostly attacks on the opponent that they use their speaking time for?
- Do they use their speaking time to argue for their own politics?
- Or do they mostly go after the opponent instead of the goal?
How concrete is the politician in their argumentation?
- How clear is the politician in their argumentation?
- Does the individual mostly speak in slogans that say very little about the specific policies? For example: “It should pay off to work” – of course, everyone can agree on that, but what does it actually mean? When does it “pay off” to work? When does it not “pay off” to work? And for whom? How big is the problem? What does the politician intend to do about it? And how do they envision the solution? Another example: “We should preserve the Faroe Islands as we know it.” But what exactly does it mean by “as we know it”? Who knows what? Is everything we know good? Should nothing be changed or improved? And if so, what? Why? What exactly does the politician want to preserve, and why?
- Does the politician attack certain views or trends in society without specifically stating who holds these views? It is easy to criticize, for example, the “increasing demand mentality” in society, but where exactly does the politician think the line is between reasonable and unreasonable demands? Who does the politician really think is so “demanding”? Does the politician say anything specific about this? Or is it just criticism without a specific target – something that no one can feel targeted by or do anything about? How does the politician envision combating the “demand mentality”?
- Does the politician throw around numbers that are very difficult to understand or assess whether they really reflect a real situation?
- Or does the individual only choose numbers that confirm what they already want to confirm?
Is the politician more inclined to attack opponents rather than achieve consensus?
- Does the politician use “strawman” arguments – making claims that the opponent believes something specific, then arguing against it, even though the opponent never said or intended what is being claimed?
- Does the politician believe they know better what the opponent thinks, more than the opponent knows themselves?
- Does the politician inquire before passing judgment, show interest and listen to what others think, and give them a chance to respond?
- Does the politician claim hidden plans or motivations on the opponent’s side, instead of directly addressing the opponent’s specific political proposals and arguing for or against their merit – and why?
- Does the politician engage with criticism and counterarguments from the opponent?
- Do they respond to the points of criticism, or do they engage in evasive tactics to deflect and avoid answering?
- Does the politician stay within their own field of play?
- Or do they simply discredit those who raise criticisms, attacking anyone daring to argue against with exaggerated accusations and personal attacks?
- What do you think the primary purpose of politicians’ arguments should be? To defeat opposition? Or to find common ground?
- Which argumentation method do you believe is most likely to lead to more solutions for real political problems?
- Can you determine for yourself which argumentation method you prefer and why?
- Why do you believe that the argumentation method of the particular politician you are considering voting for is better than others?
How do you contribute to ensuring a majority that is capable of delivering solutions beneficial to the most possible people?
If you ask yourself the questions above and try to answer them to the best of your ability – and then decide whether you can live with the answers, allowing your conclusion to influence your choice, then you have taken responsibility for where you place your vote.
But if you have not considered these questions at all and have made no attempt to answer them, then it is unlikely that your participation in the election will ensure that we have a sensible composition in the parliament, able to collaborate and truly make a difference, where the Faroese society can be organized in a way that benefits every citizen in the country.
Now make a well-considered, well-founded decision, and then go down and vote in the election and place your valuable cross.
Wish you a great election!
