I have belatedly grappled with an idea that was within the plot of the old movie entitled "Indecent Proposal." In that film, a filthy rich man, let us call him M, and an unsuccessful husband, X, reached an agreement that shocked me for its unbelievably immoral notion. X would allow his beautiful wife, B, to sleep with M, in consideration of a huge amount of money. Frankly speaking, I shuddered at the thought that X reached the lowest level of animalistic mind and assumed the worst form of bestiality in acting as his own wife's pimp!
That one evil concept naturally led to another. Such deterioration of moral foundation was predictably irreversible. M, in one scene demonstrative of his devious mind, drew a coin. He raised a proposition, threw the coin up and asked B to choose head or tail. B did not know that whatever her choice was, she was bound to lose because in fact, both sides of the coin were identical. Differently said, there was only one side and she had no chance of getting a coin side in her favor.
I realize, however, that the idea in that film can be redesigned to harbor and, better still, project the good side of the humanity. There is no doubt that man is born good and so it must be that he has the capacity to abandon totally the evil in the one-sided coin strategy of the movie and completely turn it around. Rather than an instrument of deception, our coin must have similar notion etched on both sides. But, the notion must be one of goodness that man need to pursue relentlessly with his best and most honest intentions.
How do we approach this noble paradigm? Between now and the May 2016 elections, we must adopt the one-sided coin strategy of Indecent Proposal only that this time we wrap it in righteous thoughts. The idea is to examine the candidates of His Honor Cebu City Mayor Michael L. Rama or that of his challenger, former Cebu City South District Congressman Tomas R. Osmena, in one determined focus to find out who among them are possessed with knowledge and desirable social orientations.
We understand that political leaders choose their candidates mostly from the point of view of their winning chances. I do not agree with that but, somehow it is a given. Political demigods carry in their line-up men and women who, they think, are so popular that it is not difficult for voters to remember their names at the very moment they cast their ballots at the polls. I may sound theoretically redundant but let me say that it may be good for the politicians but it does not necessarily translate into good public service.
More important than the politicians' predilection for "winnability" (I am not really sure if there is this word), there are at least two criteria to fulfill. These are knowledge and heart. In my own bias, these should be the foremost considerations we, the voters, should think about when we prepare our ballots.
We should first be on the lookout who, among our candidates, possess deeper understanding of the needs of city residents. That is knowledge. And it comes in the candidates' own search for wisdom. When elected to office, they cannot participate intelligently in the discussions in the city council unless they know what concepts that are good for the citizenry to propose. For instance, I have noticed that in one political group there is a known comedian among their candidates. I have nothing against comedians. In fact, I sustain the view that before one can become a comedian, he should be profound. It is when he has a great knowledge that he knows how to put laughter into a serious matter. But, that is our concern. We, the voters must find out if behind the face of this comedian, there is something profound. Let his discourse reveal it to us. If in the campaign he only horses around, he does not deserve our votes.
May we know how these candidates have related themselves with social issues? What stand do they have when matters of public concern come to fore? Or have they made any stand at all? We, the voters have to find out where the hearts of the candidates lie, if at all. Only those who have demonstrated the goodness of their social concerns should be voted upon or the exercise of our suffrage rights is meaningless.