What was once defined as “the science or art of political government,” and “the practice or profession of conducting political affairs,” now refers to the “use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control”; or to “dealing with people in an opportunistic, manipulative, or devious way.”
Hence, the Legislature blames politics for the governor’s veto of the budget, while he condemns politics for the override vote. They’re both right. The question is, Whose politics is preferable?
Just as government can only be as good as the people that created it, so, too, politics is a mere reflection of human nature. Let me rephrase that. Politics is human nature. “The ends of politics are generated by the necessities of human life.”
Politics, since time immemorial, has always been a bare-knuckled, full-contact sport. (In my opinion, two of the best movies about politics are Gore Vidal’s “The Best Man,” and Francis Ford Coppola’s “Godfather 2.”) It is always about people in pursuit of power. To study politics is to know who gets what, when, how.
Consider the budget veto controversy. Without a budget, the governor gets a blank check. He can spend more than what the government is actually collecting. He can hire anyone, anytime. This is an election year. He is running for office.
Due to the government’s declining revenue, most lawmakers would rather not pass a budget. Drafting a spending plan when you don’t have enough money to spend means making hard and painful choices. But politicians are not in the business of causing pain — they’re supposed to ease or end it. Not surprisingly, since the establishment of the commonwealth, there has never been a budget passed in an election year. Until last week, when the 16th Legislature overrode the governor’s veto.
“Politics is hurting the people,” the CNMI’s highest ranking politician complained a day after the override vote. “The people are suffering because of politics.”
Politics is behind the override vote. But politics, too, is the reason for the veto. And so we return to the question I raised earlier: Whose politics do you prefer? The politics of overspending or the politics of spending controls?
Believing that the people are tired of politics, some politicians think they could win elections by abandoning their political parties. “My loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins,” said a master politico back home, Don Manuel Quezon. He said that in 1921 to justify his decision to leave his party — so he could oust his rival and party mate, Don Sergio Osmeña, from the insular government’s top leadership position.
But what that does it mean anyway, Quezon’s famous sound bite? That there are political parties not loyal to their country? Then how can they win elections? Why should the people vote for their candidates? Political parties are supposed to be loyal to the country to begin with. In other words, Quezon said nothing but said it very well, and looked good saying it.
There are some principles higher than party affiliation, a CNMI politician said recently.
But again, we can ask: Isn’t party affiliation based on principles?
I guess my point is: Don’t listen to what politicians say; pay more attention to what they do.
When people complain about politics, they’re referring to the incompetence, the mismanagement and the corruption of politicians. But the solution is not less politics — we might as well abolish human nature — but better politics.
If voters, in short, are tired of politics as usual, of motherhood and apple pie promises, then come November they should choose better politicians as leaders — politicians with a new vision. The CNMI has had enough of politicians who cling to the past and can only offer old solutions to new problems. It’s time to bring in politicians aware of the new challenges facing the CNMI, and eager to take them on.
Send feedback to [email protected]
