Last Thursday, I wrote about my personal bias in favor of candidates this coming May 2013 elections who graduated from their college degrees with honors. I mentioned that my first criterion would have to be the academic preparation of the aspirants with premium on high scholastic standing. A reader inquired what should I do if none of those seeking elective positions ever finished college, let alone with flying colors. With that question, I was alarmed to acknowledge that brilliant people shy away from government service. He even asked if what he heard that a high official in our city did not finish college is true and to which query, I could not give a categorical answer without being derogatory to the official concerned.
Anyway, identifying those candidates with impeccable collegiate credentials is quite easy. After all, promotional leaflets always mention the academic backgrounds of those offering themselves to serve the public. Although it is a duty of candidates to state truthfully their educational achievements, there may be some exaggerations along the way. It then becomes the voters' responsibility to remove the chaff from the grain, so to speak.
So, after examining the scholastic backgrounds of those seeking our votes, I will focus next on their societal preference. Where do their hearts lie? In this direction, the printed advertisements are of initial use. There should be inscribed in those ads some listing of the candidates' agenda. To me, how a propaganda material is drafted gives an insight into what social concerns rank foremost in the heart of the politician. Then, I will examine critically the candidate's ads as against his published interviews and campaign pronouncement.
Quite frankly, the campaigns we have been accustomed to always harp on the plight of the poor. I have yet to hear a politician who does not swear to work for the impoverished families. Well, it is not a bad strategy to talk about “those who have less in life, must have more in law†because the poor electors appear to be more numerous than the rich ones. We cannot miss observing that on election day, the wealthy constitutes but a very small percentage of those voters falling in line waiting for their time to cast their ballots.
Even then, how come that I do not hear those seeking reelection itemize what specific actions they have taken in pursuit of their promise for the poor! Is this deliberate because there is nothing to report in which case the poor people are taken for a ride?
This election period, I wish to notice a slight but yes, observable change in the campaign spiel of candidates. I will harbor a great deal of suspicion on him who mouths pro-poor slogans only. If in his speeches, his rhetoric dwells solely on promoting the cause of the less privileged without delineating how, he must be a purveyor of empty promises who must be shunned by discerning electorates.
I am looking for a different breed of enlightened politicians. Those who continue to declare mother hood statements do not belong to this kind. When they present themselves to us the voters, they commit to work hard to formulate policies that balance the needs of the poor and the opportunities for the rich families to churn even further their engines of industries. The government that they shall lead, while bound to the improvement in the delivery of basic services, must adopt fundamental framework to allow those in the position to provide employment to grow more and multiply work force.
There are many more qualifications that space limitations simply will not allow. I will tackle more of those in the next articles. To see these qualifications in our candidates may be wishful thinking. My hope is that in the near future we may see not only these qualifications in candidates but ultimately in those who get elected into office.