Politics and economics (3)

This is my third consecutive article on the same topic: politics and economics.

This time I will delve on the significance of elections.

I am not sure just how much importance our voters place on elections, beyond the usual “pomp and pageantry” as exemplified by rallies and sorties.

I am not really sure whether the voters really understand what filling up that ballot means to their future economic conditions.

In many if not most cases, the voters do not even think about plans and programs of the candidates probably because they all look and sound the same. Some may believe slogans or catch words which may not even reflect reality.

It seems, therefore, that it is the duty of the candidates to explain to the voters what they will work for if elected. After all, they have a lot of work to do once they get elected.

The candidates and voters must, therefore, talk about specifics. If, for instance, the candidates would wish to create job opportunities then they must tell the voters exactly how they are going to do it. What kind of projects would they launch to create jobs in a sustainable manner?

If they would wish to improve educational and health status, then they must tell the voters clearly how they will do this in the 3-years within which they will serve in office. Will they improve the equipment in public hospitals?

The candidates must certainly have specific ideas. The problem seems to be in communicating these ideas to the voters so that they are clearly understood and become the basis for electing them.

Politics and economics are too complex, to the extent that it evades simplification. There are just too many variables and a lot of alternatives.

The point is: our candidates and voters must exert every effort to understand each other and concentrate on the fundamental socio-economic problems.