WHO ARE THE REAL IDIOTS: THOSE WHO DISCUSS POLITICS OR THOSE WHO ABSTAIN? AN ARISTOTELIAN PROVOCATION TO THE 33 MILLION BRAZILIANS WHO CHOSE SILENCE AT THE BALLOT BOX

Genildo Pereira

In an election year, as is well known, political debate becomes more intense than usual: everyone starts talking about politics (or almost everyone). There are those who enjoy it and see the need to debate the candidates, expressing their opinions, whether favorable or critical. On the other hand, there are those who detest people who spend all their time discussing politics on Instagram, WhatsApp, family groups, at work, or in academic settings. Sometimes, the confrontation between these two profiles becomes inevitable.

Those who dislike politics consider the enthusiasts "idiots," annoying and fanatical, displaying an air of supposed moral superiority in the realm of ideas. Conversely, those who enjoy politics see the disengaged as naive and... "idiots."

At the Brazilian ballot boxes, in the first round of these elections, it is possible to perceive the scale of this confrontation: more than 33 million abstentions were recorded. Of course, not all those who were absent abstained simply because of an aversion to politics, but a significant portion certainly shares this sentiment of disenchantment and disinterest.

But, after all, who is the real idiot in this whole story? Let us see what the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) thought about it.

Considered by many to be one of the most influential thinkers in history and the father of political thought, Aristotle argued, in Ancient Greece, that human beings are, by nature, "political animals" (zoon politikon).

In his ideas, the "idiot" is defined as the individual who lives exclusively within the private sphere, focused only on himself and completely indifferent to the fate of the community. The root of the word comes from the Greek ídios (ἴδιος), meaning "one's own," "particular," "private," or "personal." Thus, the idiótes (ἰδιώτης) was the private person: the ordinary individual who concerned himself only with his private interests, in opposition to those who devoted themselves to public affairs and the deliberations of the city.

In Ancient Greece, participation in political life was regarded as the citizen's supreme duty. The philosopher cited above went further: for him, full happiness (eudaimonia) can only be achieved through coexistence and collective deliberation within the pólis (the political community). Therefore, in order to fulfill their essence and achieve true flourishing, human beings need to participate actively in the political destiny of their city and their country.

From an Aristotelian perspective, therefore, the "idiot" is the person who refuses to discuss or actively participate in community life. The politically engaged citizen, on the other hand, is simply fulfilling his or her own essence as a "political animal." Evidently, some political animals go too far and end up becoming merely animals, because, as always, excesses exist.

Returning to Brazil today, it is clear that there is widespread dissatisfaction with politics. No one escapes it: the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary), at all levels of the federation, seem to be surrounded by scandals and disappointments. Without a doubt, it is a discouraging scenario. However, when we give up voting and exercising our citizenship, we only make the situation worse. As the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu once reminded us, supposed neutrality in the face of a collective decision is not impartiality: those who sit on the fence end up, in practice, strengthening the side that already holds power.

When we abstain, we are effectively saying that "whatever happens is fine" or that we will passively accept whatever the majority chooses. Even if the intention behind abstention is to protest, the concrete result is to place decision-making power in the hands of those with whom we disagree.

After all, the illusion that we do not like politics does not exempt us from its consequences. Even if we believe that politicians do not represent us, they are the ones who decide for us the price of bread at breakfast, the quality of our children's education, and the rights and guarantees that shape our everyday lives. Everything passes through politics. When someone abstains from voting, they are effectively saying: "Do whatever you want with me."

We have now reached the second round of these elections. Much has already happened, and the Legislative Branch (responsible for creating and repealing laws) has already been decided. However, the power to choose the Executive Branch, the country's administrator and one of the institutions responsible for overseeing the other branches, still lies in our hands.

We face a simple but profound dilemma: will we continue watching the decisions of the pólis from the outside, or will we assume responsibility for our own country? The abstention of 33 million people is a portrait of disengagement, but voting is a real tool for participation and transformation. In the next election, do not afford yourself the luxury of allowing others to decide for you. Go to the polls, make your voice heard, and finally abandon the role of the Greek idiótes. Citizenship demands presence.

Even if no candidate perfectly represents your ideas, one question remains: would there not be an option that is more beneficial for the country? Or, at the very least, an alternative that is less harmful? Avoiding the vote and displaying neutrality does not demonstrate moral superiority or courage; it merely reflects the refusal to take responsibility for deciding one's own destiny.

REFERENCES

ARISTÓTELES. A Política

ARISTÓTELES. Ética a Nicômaco

ABSTENÇÃO nas eleições 2026 bate recorde. G1, 2026. Disponível em: <https://g1.globo.com>. Acesso em: 6 out. 2026.

Genildo Pereira Galvão

Bachelor's degree in International Relations from Centro Universitário IESB. He completed one semester of his degree at Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, Mexico. He earned this opportunity through a scholarship program offered by Santander Universidades, in which he was among the 9 candidates selected in the 2017 selection process. In 2021, he began a Bachelor's degree in History, which he later put on hold to pursue a degree in Philosophy, which he is currently studying. He worked at the Ministry of Education as a Junior Legal Analyst for THS Tecnologia.