By Zaldy Dandan – Variety Editor
WHEN I first arrived on island 32 years ago, the local economy had slowed down compared to its blistering growth in the late 1980s, but everyone believed it would pick up again soon. And so it did. Consequently, the CNMI government’s finances were stable. At the time, Variety reported that the Retirement Fund was “doing just fine,” and its financial condition was “improving.”
1993 was also a general election year, and I got here during the final stretch of a spirited campaign between the Democrats and Republicans. (The only prominent “Independents” were two Republican House members who were banished from their party for not supporting its titular head, the then-Republican governor.)
Here’s a typical campaign advertisement from a legislative candidate: “He’s working hard and he’s determined to make the Commonwealth a better place…. [He] has made a commitment to all the people of the Northern Marianas — a commitment to listen to the people, to work with his colleagues and to make sure the best interests of the Commonwealth are always the top priority. [He] wants to make a difference in improving the quality of life in the CNMI.”
Another candidate described himself as someone who “knows the importance of listening to the people,” and who would “continue the common cause of the common people.”
Then there was the candidate who promised to be a “true leader, a fighter and your strong voice in [the Legislature] to continue protecting your interests where it really counts.”
“Together we can make the change for a better government,” according to another hopeful, who pledged to “serve the people well and protect their interest; restore the integrity of the islands; renew our economic, moral and social strength for prosperity; [and] restore confidence of the people.”
The main event, of course, was the gubernatorial race — a rematch of the 1989 election. The candidates’ print and broadcast ads were hard-hitting, and we can only imagine what their supporters were telling voters in pocket meetings and other campaign gatherings. Accusations of lying, duplicity, ruthlessness, desperation and corruption were pervasive. Both camps also claimed they were victims of mudslinging and personal attacks.
A few days before Election Day, the opposition camp, the Democrats, said their opponents’ “campaign strategy” was “to use scare tactics to persuade [government employees] to vote for them or lose their jobs. This is not true. We will not lay off 3,000 some government employees if we are elected. We will not lay off one single civil service employee…. We offer you a government that is committed to the interest of the public; a government that is honest and truthful; a government that is respected.”
The Republicans, for their part, asked voters, “Have you ever notice that those who criticize others and those who spread lies most often have something to hide about themselves.” The Democratic candidate “has done nothing but criticize and spread lies about our Governor and Lt. Governor.” He criticized the administration’s handling of the economy — but he “has not offered his plan — we don’t know how [he] would handle the economy, and neither does he. But we do know that he ran his construction company broke. Broken promises and people who lost their jobs — this is [his] financial record. Can he really handle our money better?”
(In an interview four years later, the Democrat, who handily won the election, explained what had happened to his construction company: “When I became involved in politics, I got into trouble…because people then were charging and not paying, and I couldn’t go up to them because I was a politician. So I should have just closed it down.”)
In another print ad, a Democrat supporter asked a Republican official, “[R]emember some years ago…when you and I plus others went to Taipei and Hong Kong. While stopping in Manila, you gave each of us $10,000 cash to [take] out of the Philippines for you. [W]hat was that money for? Did you have an extra high-paying job in the Philippines that we didn’t know about?”
Another Democrat print ad asked the Republican lt. governor, “For all the influence peddling that you did, we want to know sir whether you followed your partner’s rumored track of receiving commission for flexing your powerful muscles in government?”
A Republican print ad asked one of the Democrat’s most prominent supporters, “You speak about government vehicles and its misuse. But you totally forgot that you are a frequent user and rider of [a]…Government Vehicle for your Romance with your sister-in-law? Remember? Clean your house, and speak the truth about yourself. More to come….”
I particularly like a letter to the editor sent by a “citizen” regarding the campaign season. “[I] am completely barraged through all forms of media with the campaign promises, mudslinging, rose-colored pictures painted by each candidate. I am nearly overwhelmed by the informational overload of the senses…. I read each campaign ad in the papers with great interest. I listen and watch intently as the various commercials are aired on both radio and TV. I try to gather as much information as possible about each candidate and plan to factor that in as I attempt to sort all this information and make my decision who to vote for. But at the end of the day, when I can sit back, relax and free my mind of the hodgepodge of facts, figures, claims and promises [I] think about how well my life is going…. Is my quality of life here…better now than it was four years ago? … If the answer is yes I will [vote] for [the incumbent]; if not, then I will [vote] for [his opponent].”
It’s a tale as old as time.
Send feedback to editor@mvariety.com
Zaldy Dandan is the recipient of the NMI Society of Professional Journalists’ Best in Editorial Writing Award and the NMI Humanities Award for Outstanding Contributions to Journalism. His four books are available on amazon.com/.
