Then it happened. Keren launched a “more direct” presidential campaign; she had secretly prepared for almost three years and was now beginning to maximize her presence in the streets, in the squares, and in homes. Her speeches resonated more frequently and powerfully, generating a growing rivalry among the parties. She had three potential rivals: two already known, Gerald Reccson from the PM party, and Aníbal Harrington from the JW party, and, to everyone’s surprise, a striking and unexpected figure, Ana Uribe from the UF party. Uribe's emergence was unexpected, as neither her party nor she had shown any signs of competing for the Neptún seat, one of the seven national heroes and founder of the Presídium, an institution that over time cemented modern democracy and evolved into the former Directory and the current democracy.
Karen developed an intense campaign focused on direct contact with the people. She knew that to win the support of the Seven Republics, she needed to be present not only in words but in actions. Her slogan, “Nation of equals, nation of opportunities,” soon became a symbol of closeness to the people.
She traveled through the squares, residential and rural neighborhoods, often accompanied by local and community leaders who reinforced her image as a woman of the people. She presented herself as accessible and humble, embracing people, listening to their concerns, and sharing moments from her daily life with them. She adopted a stance of resistance and unity, speaking about humanity’s capacity to overcome any adversity and how the construction and maintenance of the walls of this “new world” could only be possible if everyone worked together, a latent concern in those days.
Karen replicated some of the gestures that her husband, Fausto, had popularized during his presidency, such as giving speeches in the rain and celebrating outdoor events. By merging her narrative with his but from her perspective, she managed to attract both Fausto’s supporters and young people who saw in her an independent figure continuing his legacy while bringing a new and fresh vision.
Her rivals adopted different approaches. Aníbal, owner of the oldest newspaper in the Seven Republics, "El Faro," used his medium to print his speeches and actions on the front page, positioning his candidacy as an opportunity for fresh and modern change, with promises of economic reforms and greater freedom of information. However, his closeness to the media industry raised doubts in some sectors, who saw him as a candidate excessively linked to private interests.
Gerald, on the other hand, sought the support of conservative sectors on military issues, appealing to those who feared that someone like Fausto might reduce the military. Representing a conservative stance, Gerald advocated for expanding the army and strengthening the wall to ensure national security against possible new threats from the infected. Veterans and those concerned about national territory defense were drawn to his campaign. He presented himself as the candidate of firmness, in contrast to Karen's empathy.
Ana, although with few resources, managed to garner sympathy, especially among minorities and progressive youth, being the first woman to represent the UF party. Her campaign was limited and poorly documented, but some of her phrases, like “Freedom is for all, not just some” or “The homeland is the people, not the party,” resonated among social movements, leaving her as an interesting but fleeting figure.
What was President Fausto doing during this intense campaign? He opted for silence. He had decided that his wife should earn the position on her own merits, without interference or influence from him. While the electoral fervor seized the country, he continued with his responsibilities as president, inaugurating public works and drafting laws, without commenting on the political contest. When journalists tried to elicit an opinion from him, he simply replied:
“At this moment, the nation is debating its future. It’s understandable that you want to know my position, but I consider my stance irrelevant. You already know it.”
A journalist, attempting to pry more out of him, asked, “But what is your position, President?”
“You already know it; there’s no need for me to say it.”
“And what about your wife?” the journalist insisted.
“As I said, you know it.”
And with this, the first part of the debate concluded, and the second part began. In this new encounter, the focus shifted to the economic policies necessary to sustain the country's reconstruction in a context where resources were limited and international trade had ceased to exist.
Karen defended her proposal for a “Fair Economy,” which ensured access to basic goods for all citizens. Her plan included subsidies for the agricultural and manufacturing sectors to avoid dependence on imports, ensuring that no republic could be the key to another.
“Our people must be the first to benefit from the resources we have left,” she asserted firmly. “I reject any policy that allows the individual interests of other republics to lead us back into blind dependence.”
Gerald Reccson launched a direct attack, accusing Karen of creating a “permanent state of charity” that would stagnate economic development.
“What you propose, Mrs. Freeman, is nothing more than a system that rewards inefficiency. If we follow your path, we will be a country that survives, but not one that thrives. You speak of unity, yet you fear the seven republics and their reasonable dependence. Blessed hypocrisy.”
Aníbal Harrington, with his revitalization approach, defended the need to establish trade agreements with the other republics that would foster innovation and internal growth. He also suggested austerity measures to secure funds for long-term projects.
“Real prosperity is not built in the squares or in promises; it is built with solid actions and firm decisions. Maintaining subsidies indefinitely is like trying to keep a ship flying over the ocean with paper wings.”
Ana Uribe condemned the idea of trade agreements, warning that, in practice, they would only serve to empower large corporations.
“We are talking about the survival of the people, not the pockets of a handful of elites.”
This narrative has been unlawfully taken from Royal Road. If you see it on Amazon, please report it.
No one bothered to respond or counter the accusations of the others, which caught the audience’s attention.
Each candidate's responses reflected their distinct visions for the country, and tensions rose even further when Aníbal suggested that Karen was merely upholding Fausto's legacy without a deep understanding of economics, a claim that Karen rebutted with determination.
“I will not allow that attack, Mr. Harrington. I am well aware of this country's economy, an economy that is taking off thanks to President Fausto's policies.”
And with this closing, the third part of the debate began. National security became the central theme of this new encounter, and the candidates discussed the maintenance of the wall and the militarization of border areas.
Gerald Reccson was emphatic in his stance to strengthen security. He proposed a “Wall Army,” a permanent armed force to patrol the areas of contact with the infected lands.
“Security is a basic right of all citizens, and I do not apologize for saying we need a wall of soldiers. Every slip in our defenses is an invitation to disaster. These walls protect us; in that, I agree with the president. But they are empty words without real actions that can reinforce that security. We must not disrespect the workers who died building it by ignoring its purpose.”
Karen Freeman criticized the proposal, arguing that militarizing the border would drain necessary resources for internal reconstruction.
“We do not disrespect anyone, especially not the heroes who built that wall. What good is a secure nation if it is wounded and abandoned from within? Of course, we must protect ourselves from the threat of the infected. I know what it is to fear them; I know how lethal they are, but not at the expense of the well-being of our people in the heart of the Seven Republics.”
Aníbal Harrington attempted to mediate, proposing moderate investment in surveillance technology instead of increasing troops. He pointed out that it was possible to protect the border without diverting funds from other essential projects.
“Soldiers don’t need to be at the border if we can have other means of protection. There’s no need for a line of soldiers standing idle, staring at a wall 24/7, when only maintenance of the wall is required. It’s not just about quantity but about quality in our defense.”
Ana Uribe took a controversial stance, stating that the wall was a “prison” that limited growth and isolated the country. Her proposal included greater investment in the community and a “reintegration” plan for those living in areas near the wall.
“We don’t need giant prisons or thousands of soldiers. We need hope and reconstruction. This wall is more than a physical barrier; it is a mental barrier that prevents us from moving forward.”
The three candidates did not remain silent.
Aníbal sharply attacked that stance.
“Shut your mouth and stop saying nonsense. These walls are not a prison; they are the tangible evidence of thousands of men who did not surrender to such a hostile environment and built this wonder with their own hands. They are a testament to the great feat of mankind.”
Gerald also opposed that stance, labeling it as ignorant.
“A prison? Not only is that irrelevant, but your party is also ignorant. Proof of this is your candidacy. Have you forgotten that it was you who initiated and pushed for the construction of the walls again? Weren’t you the ones who did a large part of the work? You disgrace the party and its supporters. I feel pity for the Union of the Free; I feel great pity for Sofia Sigma, a true warrior.”
Karen disagreed with that rhetoric, albeit in a gentler manner.
“I concur with my rivals. What you’ve said is outrageous, Miss Uribe; you should apologize for it, with all due respect. You are not qualified to govern with that mentality.”
This unfortunate comment from candidate Ana Uribe jeopardized her career and caused the three rivals to momentarily agree.
Thus, the third debate concluded, paving the way for the fourth. This time, the candidates addressed the issue of social rights, focusing on youth and labor rights in the Seven Republics.
Karen Freeman promoted her proposal to maintain free and universal education as a cornerstone for the growth of a “resilient generation.” She also proposed mental health programs for young people, as many of them felt anxious and curious about wanting to leave the walls.
“After all we have been through, our youth deserve a bright future. We owe them not just protection; we owe them a clear plan, a real opportunity for growth and learning.”
Gerald Reccson deemed these programs “costly and superfluous” in a society that, according to him, needed to prepare for new war challenges. Instead, he proposed the reintroduction of mandatory military service.
“Young people must be ready to defend what is theirs. We cannot talk about dreams and free education when we cannot even ensure their security in the future.”
These statements began to sit poorly with the audience, as many remembered mandatory service as a horrific memory: two years of physical and psychological torture.
Aníbal saw this opportunity and used it against him.
“I feel obliged to agree with Miss Karen. Education must be free and accessible; taking that away just to have more soldiers reinforces the idea that you want armed ignoramuses. There is nothing more terrifying than an idiot with weapons, especially if those idiots are manipulated by educated people. Don’t make me laugh, Reccson.”
Gerald didn’t stay silent.
“Our education is of a high level. Don’t dare to belittle our education; it is just as efficient as public schools.”
“Is that so? Shoot the enemy, the enemy of the army.”
Gerald was about to start a heated dispute, but the moderator pleaded for order.
Ana Uribe opposed Gerald’s proposal and suggested an inclusive approach, where resources would be allocated to youth without distinction or conditions. She also promoted the idea of an inclusive healthcare system.
“Mental health and education are not luxuries; they are rights. If we want a just society, we must abandon the idea that only some can access them.”
Reccson laughed.
“Allow me to remind you that when the proposal was voted on, your bloc abstained. You are a bunch of hares.”
And with this response, the fourth debate concluded and the fifth and final one began. This debate focused on the topic of culture and national identity, in a time when society found itself at a crossroads between modernization and tradition.
Karen Freeman defended the importance of an identity that preserved traditions while adapting them to modern times.
“It’s not about choosing between the past and the future; it’s about finding a point of union. Our identity is what differentiates us from the zombies and what will make us prevail.”
Gerald Reccson took a more rigid stance, asserting that “cultural decay” was one of the greatest threats. He advocated for a “patriotic and traditionalist” education.
“It’s time we return to our roots. Modernization may be necessary, but never at the expense of what makes us unique: courage and prowess.”
Aníbal Harrington expressed that cultural identity must evolve, proposing an internationalist approach for the Seven Republics.
“The world has changed; we must open ourselves to new ideas and enrich our culture with the best of the best.”
Ana Uribe was emphatic in her support for the preservation of popular culture and the traditions of less developed areas, advocating for a country “for everyone, not just for the capitals.”
“We must listen to our peoples and protect their traditions, without imposing a single identity. Each republic has its roots, and we must learn to live in diversity.”
This last debate highlighted the deep divergences between the candidates. It closed with Karen urging national unity, while Gerald defended a “patriotic line” and Aníbal and Ana advocated for inclusive and multicultural approaches. Each candidate's stance was clear. Every citizen of the Seven Republics had witnessed the exchange of ideas and conflicting personalities, leaving an uncertain ground for the final election.