Check all of their campaign promises — their pre-election pronouncements and political ads. Then compare them with their actions once in office.
They promised, and will continue to promise, more funding for public education, better health care, an improved business climate, etc., etc. Once in power, however, their main job will be to explain why they didn’t deliver on their promises.
But voters are painfully aware of the disconnect between their leaders’ talk and walk. Since the first CNMI election in 1977, only one politician has been re-elected governor, Teno, who was at the helm when the local economy boomed in the late 1980s. The current governor and, quite possibly, his successor will not get another term. The problems of the CNMI are systemic and staggering; they require long-term solutions. In politics, however, “long-term” is the next election year.
But why do the same voters keep re-electing most of their lawmakers who should also be blamed for the mess we’re in?
The “secret” to the lawmakers’ political longevity is their benign presence in the community, which is seldom, if ever, reported by the media. They attend christenings, birthday parties, wedding anniversaries, fiestas and funerals of constituents. They generously contribute to the never ending fundraising events of schools, students, villages, community groups. Their home and office doors are always open to constituents who need help, usually a plea for cash or a job.
Back in the good old days, when the economy was still humming in the mid-1990s, a lawmaker lost re-election by seven votes. He told me one of his constituents had asked him for a job, but because the lawmaker wasn’t in bed with the then-governor, he couldn’t deliver. “That guy and his family cost me exactly seven voters,” the lawmaker said.
It is in the villages where local lawmakers do their work, and this type of politics is the logical outgrowth of living in a small community with a small population, an overwhelming majority of whom work for the government. Now if all candidates are running on a motherhood and apple pie platform, who should a usually apolitical citizen vote for? The most likeable or the one you’re most closely related — i.e., the most “approachable.”
Among the promises made by the current Saipan mayor when he was still running for office in 2001 was the implementation of the stray dog control law enacted in 1995. Lawmakers never funded it. The then-mayoral candidate vowed to find the needed funding. His term ends a year and a half from now but I doubt if he could still fulfill that pledge. His excuse: “But the Legislature never gave me funding!”
Governors like buts, too.
“But the lawmakers never passed it!”
“But there was an Asian financial crisis, SARS, 9/11.”
“But the feds want to take over immigration!”
Lots of buts, although all of these reasons/excuses already existed when they were still making promises to voters.
In the interest of honesty, candidates for office should present their campaign pledges like product advertisements — with disclaimers.
“I promise to pass a new and balanced budget — but only if lawmakers will agree to make steep spending cuts that will upset a lot of government officials and employees like you.”
“I promise more funding for PSS, Public Health, Public Safety, NMC — if there is extra money left after meeting the government’s primary responsibility, which is to pay its employees on time.”
“I promise to fix CUC and lower power rates — but I really don’t know how, and the experts I will consult may propose politically unacceptable , i.e., unpopular, solutions.”
“I promise a more transparent government — but I would like to be exempted from the Open Government Act.”
“I promise not to lie — but I’ll do my best not to get caught lying.”
Send feedback to
