The politics of expectation

Live from Saipan By Zaldy Dandan

 Saipan— I’m quite sure that at some point a voter will finally ask himself: Why is it that in every election all candidates promise to make things better, yet once they’re in office they seldom do? Not a single one of them promised to be corrupt, incompetent, or way in over his head, but eventually voters end up complaining about corruption, incompetence and leaders who are way in over their heads.

I’ve been reading, writing and thinking about politics for over 30 years now. It’s my job, and it includes sitting through countless legislative hearings on cabinet and board appointees and hearing nothing but glowing praise for the nominees. They are all highly qualified, well-intentioned, hard-working visionaries.

It is rare for anyone to publicly oppose a nominee, and when that happens, it’s usually because of a personal quarrel.

Once nominees have been confirmed, sworn into office and are steering the helm, so to speak, talk about their questionable actions and ineptitude, among other signs of unfitness for office, soon follows.

And then there are the policy proposals themselves, especially the bills introduced in the legislature. They’re virtually press releases, with lofty aims and loftier promises of “solutions” to long-standing problems. It’s unusual for anyone to question if these measures actually meet their goals. Take the anti-littering or juvenile curfew laws, for example.

Here in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, it’s election year again, and candidates for office, whether they know it or not, are already regurgitating campaign pledges made decades ago, often in the exact same words:

“We must move forward together with steady leadership, unity of purpose, and a clear vision that puts our people first. By working together, we can build a stronger and more prosperous future for our island.”

ADVERTISEMENT

In politics, candidates must talk the, well, talk. There is a reason why clichés and bromides will always be with us. Many people believe in them. Many of us are reassured, or even soothed, when we hear such deathless, ancient phrases. Country first, for the good of the community, the common welfare, a chicken in every pot. What’s not to like?

But then again, what else can a candidate say?

“Vote for me and I’ll see what I can do to improve the economy. I must admit, though, that what we need are more tourists and new investments, and the responsible government agencies are already doing their best to make that happen.  Unlike the other candidates, I cannot promise more funding for education, public health, public safety, public works or other vital services. The economy is down and, consequently, our government is broke. I cannot look you in the eye and promise not to consider more cost-cutting measures. But I will be out there in the villages—cutting brush, cleaning up, showing up at fiestas, rosaries, funerals, sports events, graduation days, buying fundraising tickets—among other things that will make me visible to my constituents and show them that I am literally serving them.”

That’s refreshingly honest, but not exactly an inspiring, vote-winning speech.

In any case, it seems that those who know what the problems are and how to address them—if they can be addressed at all—are the most reluctant to seek office. Apparently, to be a politician, one must overestimate one’s abilities and underestimate the challenges one is willing to face.

There are, to be sure, good—and by good, I mean rational—reasons to vote for a certain candidate. She’s a relative. He’s a friend. You agree with what she says the problems are and what she says she’ll do to solve them. You like him for his looks. She seems approachable. He’s someone you can drink a beer with. She’ll hire you when she wins.

The voter who usually ends up frustrated is the one who fully expects that the candidate he or she supports will right all the wrongs, save us from ourselves and usher in a new era of change, enlightenment and progress.

Those who are constantly disappointed include voters who don’t want to pay for anything and expect elected officials to make someone else pay for it. What many of us seem to be unaware of is that without a thriving economy, the government will eventually run out of other people’s money.

So in every election year we vote for change, and what we usually get is a change in leadership, not in the way things are run. Inefficiency, extravagance, and waste remain the hallmarks of governance—no matter who’s in charge.

We all say we want real change, but that requires changing the public’s mindset and voters’ expectations.

However, as Jacob Morton Braude would put it: “Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you will understand what little chance you have in trying to change others.”

You disagree. Case closed.

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/.