FINDING ANSWERS

Whether it’s less or more, evil is still evil. Unlike a choice between good and evil, being left with nothing else but an array of poisons can be quite challenging. But not making a choice might even make matters worse.

The recent comment of Pope Francis that voters must choose the lesser evil encapsulates the dilemma faced by many of us who feel constrained by limited choices and have to choose among candidates not fully aligned with our ideals and values.

“Not voting is bad. One must vote, and one must choose the lesser evil,” the Pope said on Sept. 13 when asked about the US November elections while aboard the papal plane returning to the Vatican from his trip to Asia.

“Who is the lesser evil? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know. Each person must think and decide according to their own conscience,” Pope Francis said.

Though their names were not actually mentioned, the Pope obviously referred to US Vice President Kamala Harris whose campaign hinges on abortion rights and to former US President Donald Trump who is known for tough immigration policies.

“Both are against life. The one that throws out migrants and the one that kills children,” Pope Francis said in a mixture of Spanish and Italian languages translated to English.

In a comment aligned to his statement years ago that the Holy Family had to flee and take refuge in another land to save the life of the Messiah, Pope Francis told reporters: “Sending migrants away, not allowing them to work, not welcoming migrants is a sin, a grave one… It is cruelty.”

Stressing that “the Church does not allow abortion because it’s killing,” the Pope pointed out: “Science says that in the first month after conception, all the organs of a human being are already there, all of them. Performing an abortion is killing a human being.”

Thus, in essence, having to choose between two things that are evil is deciding what sin to commit, or which of the two might be less sinful.
Harris has always been a vocal supporter of women’s reproductive rights, including access to abortion – a stance directly in contrast with Church teachings on the sanctity of life.

Trump’s hardline stance on immigration has raised fears that millions would be deported if he wins anew. The stance is in contrast with Pope Francis’ broader vision of social justice and inclusivity, which is rooted in the Church teachings on the dignity of all human beings.

Voting for the lesser evil reflects a reality that resonates also in the Philippines where the electorate has to choose a candidate that is believed will do less harm rather than one who inspires genuine hope for transformative leadership.

In many elections in the past, the race often narrowed to candidates saddled with allegations of corruption or questionable ethical conduct. Rather than focusing on the ideal qualities of one who represents the ideal leader morally fit for the elective post, voters engage in the difficult task of weighing which poses fewer risks.

With voters compelled to choose among flawed candidates, their decision is seen as a pragmatic approach to preventing greater harm. But such comes with questions of moral weight. Does voting for a lesser evil endorse a broken system and perpetuate mediocrity in leadership? Or does it reflect a responsibility to control or minimize damage?

Come to think of it, given a choice to vote for the lesser evil is infinitely better than having no choice at all. In our country where political dynasties are prevalent, there are often no other choices in local politics where there is only one candidate for an elective post.

And things are not bound to change in the near future. Next week’s filing of candidacies for the 2025 local elections could be the same as in the past. Members of prominent political families would run unopposed in many municipalities and cities throughout the country.

The notion of the lesser evil is not about accepting evil but recognizing that in a fallen and imperfect world, voters may sometimes be forced to make difficult compromises. It is about making the most morally responsible choice in a given situation, even if that choice is not ideal.

Amid the complexities of modern democracy, Pope Francis encourages voters to avoid a simplistic black-and-white view of politics, where one candidate is absolutely good and the other entirely bad. Instead, he calls for nuanced moral reasoning that considers the practical implications upon the most vulnerable members of society.

In the end, the challenge for us voters is to balance pragmatism with the hope that one day, there will no longer be a need to choose between evils but the genuine option to vote for a leader who truly represents our highest ideals. ([email protected])