The eternal cycle of ‘we care’ and empty coffers

Live from Saipan By Zaldy Dandan

Saipan — One of the most popular campaign slogans used by candidates for elective offices here in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is,

“We deliver.” As if they’re Domino’s or Uber Eats.

To be sure, other politicians elsewhere in the world promise the same thing: “Results that matter.” “Getting it done.” “Making things happen.” “Action first.”

“We get it done.” “We listen.”“We care.”

Candidates promise to do something for voters in return for their votes. This “something” can be anything from cash and jobs to better roads, better schools, more police presence or even “clean government” (though most voters seldom notice the irony in making that request).

Voters end up electing politicians who will do—or at least try to do—exactly what the electorate wants. But when, inevitably, the reality of the mathematical kind sets in, the same voters blame the “bums” they put into office and replace them with a new set of “sincere,” “honest,” “intelligent,” “hard-working,” “new faces,” who will “listen to the people” and “do what is good” for the community, not just for themselves or their friends and relatives.

They are sworn into office and will try to “deliver.” But unless the economy is thriving, their “sincerity,” “honesty,” “intelligence,” “hard work” and “fresh ideas” will not produce the electorate’s desired results, which involve having more of the good things in life and less—much less—of the bad.

In the CNMI, most voters wanted—they still do—free K-12 education, more schools, college scholarships, training programs, job security, regular pay raises, low tax rates, generous welfare programs, public safety, free or low-cost public health services, a generous retirement system, homestead villages with all the necessary infrastructure, paved roads, reliable and affordable utility services, a wide variety of reasonably priced consumer goods, recreational activities, telecommunications and air and sea transportation, among other modern amenities that would make life on a small, remote island with a tiny population located in typhoon alley much better.

So how the heck can we afford all that?

“Ah,” says the voter, “that’s why we need dedicated leaders.”

But hasn’t the electorate been electing such leaders since the Trust Territory era?

“We need more dedicated ones, then,” the voter insists.

The CNMI electorate, more or less, got what they demanded from their politicians—but only because the local economy boomed in the late 1980s and mid-1990s, and again in the mid-2010s.

We’re in deep financial doodoo today because the economy has been kneecapped by pandemic restrictions, which put the tourism industry in a coma. Many federal laws and rules aren’t helping either.

Households and businesses coping with financial distress usually cut their costs. But not government. Its officials—and voters themselves—seem to believe that basic arithmetic shouldn’t apply to government so it can continue to “look out” for the people.

And so, in the next election, voters will once again elect candidates “who care,” and who will promise to “make things better” through “economic diversification,” “sustainability” and other catchphrases that are like catnip to most voters.

This, to be sure, is not a “CNMI thing.” Other territories and countries, including the old Western democracies, are beset by the same problems created by profligate governments—and electorates.

To paraphrase economics professor Bryan Caplan of Virginia’s George Mason University: democracy fails not because we elect officials who don’t do what we want them to do; democracy fails precisely because we elect officials who do what we want them to do.

As most of the problems of modern democracies—including the CNMI—stem from financially strapped governments with ever-mounting obligations, why is it so hard for many politicians to realize that any “solution” must focus on improving the economy so it can generate the revenue to pay for government goodies?

I’m not arguing for a dictatorship, of course. That is so much worse. It can never be an option for any sensible person. But it wouldn’t hurt to have more economically literate politicians and voters.

Otherwise, we could end up validating this old warning often attributed to Scottish historian Alexander Fraser Tytler: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Zaldy Dandan is the editor of the CNMI’s oldest — and only remaining — newspaper, Marianas Variety. His fourth book, “If He Isn’t Insane Then He Should Be: Stories & Poems from Saipan,” is available on amazon.com/.

Subscribe to

our digital

monthly edition