Plans, parties, platforms and politics

The coming elections present an opportunity for voters to choose their leaders. In the course of the campaign, the candidates will inform the voters about what they will do if elected.

Most of the candidates will run under a political party which is supposed to have a platform or a set of principles and programs it adheres to and seeks to promote.

For voters, it might not be easy to distinguish the parties and their platforms, except for highly political issues like questioning the performance of re-electionists and vice-versa-the re-electionists questioning the capabilities and motives of their opponents.

Given the level of campaigning which can go down to “dirty tricks” and “mudslinging” (“everything being thrown including the kitchen sink”), it would be refreshing and useful for voters to determine how the candidates will relate to existing development plans particularly those at the national and local levels. These plans identify socio-economic problems which party platforms should address.

This approach brings to mind a recent conversation I had with a municipal Mayor who has switched allegiance from an incumbent to a newcomer.

He said a major reason he changed parties and allegiance is that he wants to continue implementing the existing development plan of his town. He is afraid that this plan which he and the other elected officials in his town has carefully crafted will not be implemented if another set of officials takes over the leadership of the town.

He is, obviously, implying that by switching allegiance he is sure of winning and retaining his position as Mayor.

Whether or not his switch in party allegiance will make him win, only the voters can decide.

To me what is important in his statement is the value he places on having a development plan for his town and his firm determination to implement it.

How many local chief executives do we have who tie up their politics with development plans?