By James Jimenez
I have long ago given up on being able to differentiate between candidates based on ideology or theory of government. For as long as I’ve been voting, the common complaint has always been that one candidate is almost indistinguishable from any other – all of them support the same things; all of them condemn the same things; and no one goes into enough detail for us, voters, to know if what they are promising is for real.
In that environment, where policies, platforms, and promises tend to be so generic as to be essentially meaningless, I have learned to look at a candidate’s integrity as the one deciding factor that gets my vote. When our candidates start outlining detailed policies and well-fleshed out platforms, those things will sway me again. In the meantime, integrity is what I am looking for in a candidate.
More than just honesty – which is hard enough to find anyway – integrity is about consistency, accountability, and the willingness to put the public’s interests above personal gain. In my eyes, sans integrity, a candidate is fundamentally disqualified.
Consistency
Consistency simply means that a person’s actions align with their principles. At the best of times, it is probably not difficult to be consistent, barring outright lies. But a person’s integrity is not tested at the best of times, but at the worst. When it becomes difficult to walk the talk, as it were, consistency reveals a person’s commitment to doing what they said they would do, regardless of circumstances, pressure, or temptation.
This is exactly what we should be looking for in a candidate, asking us to vote for them. They need to demonstrate, as a bare minimum, reliability and trustworthiness. Candidates are voted into office on the strength of their words; if those words are later on shown to be mere window dressing, then their occupancy of the elective office would be nothing more than a matter of ambition, rather than public service.
Accountability
Just as consistency is tested during difficult times, so is accountability. The willingness to take responsibility for one’s actions and decisions – as well as their consequences – is a necessary and natural companion to consistency.
Integrity demands not only that a person does what is right but that they own the outcomes of their actions—whether those outcomes are positive or negative. Accountability demonstrates this by requiring individuals to acknowledge their role in events, make amends if necessary, and remain transparent about their motives and behaviors. This openness reinforces trust, as others see that the individual not only stands by their values but also holds themselves to those values even when mistakes are made or challenges arise.
Others ahead of self
For me, the most critical marker of integrity that a politician can demonstrate, is the willingness to subordinate their own selfish interests to those of the public and the nation. Admittedly, this can be a difficult hurdle to clear.
Imagine a politician willingly shutting the rest of his family out of politics – or leaving the political arena themselves – as a consequence of supporting legislation that outlaws dynasties. Or consider a politician who deliberately shackles his own ability to campaign, in order to prevent premature campaigning. Or legislating a measure that would end up diminishing their own family’s fortunes, in the name of fairness and equity. And those are just the examples we are familiar with.
The Power of Integrity in Action
The Mahatma Gandhi is another sterling example of integrity. Denouncing their colonial overlords’ economic power over India, he aligned his lifestyle with his rejection of the trappings of western life. He spun his own cloth, and made his own salt, demonstrating through his deprivation, the ability of his people to live independently.
Closer to our time, the late Nelson Mandela is a shining example of integrity in leadership. After spending 27 years in prison, he emerged with a commitment to reconciliation rather than revenge. Despite immense pressure to take the easier path of fostering division, he chose unity, earning respect worldwide. His moral clarity and consistency laid the groundwork for South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy.
And right here at home, we see integrity in how Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago forcefully championed the passing of a law that would prevent politicians – like herself – from claiming credit for infrastructure projects.
A Personal Responsibility
As a voter, I have a duty to scrutinize candidates not just for their policies but for their character. Campaign promises come and go, but integrity is the foundation upon which good governance is built.
When a candidate demonstrates a pattern of dishonesty, ethical lapses, or self-serving behavior, they are telling us who they are. It’s our responsibility to believe them—and to withhold our vote. After all, electing someone without integrity risks more than bad policy; it risks the erosion of trust in our democracy itself.
As I head to the polls, I will remember this: leaders come and go, but their impact on society’s moral compass endures. That’s why, above all else, integrity will be the guiding principle in my vote.
