Election season is a season of promises. Listen to the presidential candidates in their roadshows and you get an avalanche of these. Free medical care, employment, tax exemption, less corruption, less criminality, etcetera. Add to these is the planned expansion of the "pantawid sa pamilya" and you get mesmerized by the cornucopia of goodies from these would-be presidents. Promises and more promises are repeatedly dished out to gladden the hearts especially of the poor and win their votes.
There's really nothing wrong with making promises. What is wrong is if promises are not fulfilled, as what usually happens when the candidate who made promises fails to make good his or her words.
Yet broken promises no longer disappoint the people, having been used to this thing already. For decades, they have sent one president after another to Malacañang all of whom promised them the moon, but look where they are now. Doubt, skepticism – these usually greet politicians' promises. People listen of course, and in fact, applaud the exhortations. Yet it's doubtful if their advocacy changes because of promises.
What determines such advocacy? Usually, it's the local leaders to whom the voter can relate in his day to day life. Perhaps, this could be the town mayor or any lower officials who can be a source of benefits to the voter concerned. Or this could be a private person who can serve as a go-between whenever he needs a favor from local politicians.
Logistics or cold cash can also dictate the direction of choice. Given the acute need for money, since many of the voters are unemployed, the likelihood of getting a windfall at election time is indeed attractive.
If promises don't dictate choice, why do politicians keep on making them? One reason is that they want to appear sympathetic to the sufferings of the poor. Take note that their promises always harp on how to make life better for the disadvantaged. Winning the support of this group, which constitutes almost 25 percent of the total number of voters, is certainly a guarantee of getting the mandate.
Another reason why candidates make promises is that they may have really sympathized with the plight of the poor and are really sincere in trying to alleviate this. But the hitch is that although they know the problem they don't know how to solve it. They see the situation and give simplistic solutions. But it's not as easy as that once they get seated in the power corridors – what with powerful contributors demanding payback, what with vested interests trying to influence decisions, what with party concerns needing attention, what with dozens of other factors and forces figuring in every executive moves.
What happens then to the promised policy directions? These get smothered by forces beyond the president's control.
Take one candidate's promise to get rid of criminality, corruption, and drug addiction. Employment of idle adults can be a good approach. But how can this be done if jobs are not available because few investors are willing to set up business in the country for reasons of unfavorable circumstances?
Take another candidate's plan to exempt from tax liability a big sector of taxpayers or reduce the same liability of another big sector. Would this not radically reduce the revenue take of the government thereby forcing it to increase foreign borrowing to fill the budgetary gap? We are already spending about 40 percent of our annual appropriation to pay our debts. Wouldn't a bloated outlay for more loans cripple the economy?
Yet election season is a season of promises. For more than six decades after independence the Filipino electorates have been bombarded with promises after promises. But what has happened? While the people proliferate the economy deteriorates, and now we are becoming candidate as the poor man of Asia.
Promises, political promises, how many crimes have been committed in your name?