Season of promises
Published Nov 7, 2021 12:12 am
THE VIEW FROM RIZAL
Dr. Jun Ynares
“Nothing but promises – that’s all we hear from candidates in a campaign season.”
That is the gist of one of the most common remarks we have been hearing from people from all walks of life since the Commission on Elections accepted Certificates of Candidacy from political aspirants to national and local positions in the May 2022 polls.
Our answer is, “that’s all a candidate can do – make promises.”
It is neither wrong nor bad for a candidate to be making such promises.
In fact, it is a candidate’s “job” to make promises: A list of what he or she plans to do if elected into the office the candidate is aspiring for. It is part of the “job application” process which a candidate goes through during the campaign period.
It is the voter’s “job” to find out if the promises are relevant to them and if the source of the promise has what it takes to deliver and fulfill them, and make them come true.
Having gone through countless election campaigns, we realized that there are actually two types of “promises” from candidates: The “expressed” and the “ascribed” promise.
The “expressed promise” is the one that the candidate himself said, like, “I will build more roads and bridges.” This type of promise came from the candidate and voters can collect on the promise by saying, “you told us that you will do this and that for us.”
The “ascribed promise” is the one that voters felt or thought that a certain candidate stands for or would deliver if elected into office. The “ascribed promise” is not said by the candidate, and instead comes from the voters themselves. It is partly an impression or a conclusion they make about a candidate.
The “ascribed promise” may sound like this: “We feel he or she is the candidate who can do this or do that for us.” Voters may then try to collect on the promise after the candidate wins by saying, “well, we thought you would do this and that for us.”
The failure to deliver an “expressed promise” is disappointing on the part of the voters; the failure to deliver an “ascribed promise,” even more.
Voters must make their choice based on the “expressed promise” of a candidate.” They must also collect on the “expressed promise” made by a candidate who eventually wins.
It is best for voters not to let themselves be victims of the “ascribed promise.” Just like in business or in other aspects of our lives, it is never wise to rely on something that was not clearly stated and agreed upon.
Here is an unsolicited advice to neophyte political aspirants: Avoid the “ascribed promise” syndrome. Voters usually resort to the “ascribed promise” when they are looking for a “savior” — the candidate who will “save” them from poverty or oppression. They could face the serious risk of disappointing voters.
The better way is to have “expressed promises” that are deliverable and doable. It is even better if the candidate can use “metrics” like what private corporations do when they put together the so-called “key result areas” in their strategic plans.
An election “promise” needs a basis — some kind of proof that the source of the “promise” can deliver it. There seems to be only one clear, objective basis. It is called “track record” or “previous performance.”
That is what answers the voter’s question to the candidate which goes: “What have you accomplished in the past which proves that you can accomplish what you promise for the future?”
This is the same as what hiring specialists working for private companies do: Look for proof from the past that the applicant can perform the job.
This is how voters should do it.
After all, as we said several times in past columns, political aspirants are job applicants.
An elective post is a job. A candidate wants to be our employee. He or she needs to prove that he or she fits the job.
We can continue to listen to campaign promises. We must also continue to look for the proof on which the promises stand.
*For feedback, please email it to [email protected] or send it to Block 6 Lot 10 Sta. Barbara 1 cor. Bradley St., Mission Hills Subd., Brgy. San Roque, Antipolo City, Rizal.
Dr. Jun Ynares
“Nothing but promises – that’s all we hear from candidates in a campaign season.”
That is the gist of one of the most common remarks we have been hearing from people from all walks of life since the Commission on Elections accepted Certificates of Candidacy from political aspirants to national and local positions in the May 2022 polls.
Our answer is, “that’s all a candidate can do – make promises.”
It is neither wrong nor bad for a candidate to be making such promises.
In fact, it is a candidate’s “job” to make promises: A list of what he or she plans to do if elected into the office the candidate is aspiring for. It is part of the “job application” process which a candidate goes through during the campaign period.
It is the voter’s “job” to find out if the promises are relevant to them and if the source of the promise has what it takes to deliver and fulfill them, and make them come true.
Having gone through countless election campaigns, we realized that there are actually two types of “promises” from candidates: The “expressed” and the “ascribed” promise.
The “expressed promise” is the one that the candidate himself said, like, “I will build more roads and bridges.” This type of promise came from the candidate and voters can collect on the promise by saying, “you told us that you will do this and that for us.”
The “ascribed promise” is the one that voters felt or thought that a certain candidate stands for or would deliver if elected into office. The “ascribed promise” is not said by the candidate, and instead comes from the voters themselves. It is partly an impression or a conclusion they make about a candidate.
The “ascribed promise” may sound like this: “We feel he or she is the candidate who can do this or do that for us.” Voters may then try to collect on the promise after the candidate wins by saying, “well, we thought you would do this and that for us.”
The failure to deliver an “expressed promise” is disappointing on the part of the voters; the failure to deliver an “ascribed promise,” even more.
Voters must make their choice based on the “expressed promise” of a candidate.” They must also collect on the “expressed promise” made by a candidate who eventually wins.
It is best for voters not to let themselves be victims of the “ascribed promise.” Just like in business or in other aspects of our lives, it is never wise to rely on something that was not clearly stated and agreed upon.
Here is an unsolicited advice to neophyte political aspirants: Avoid the “ascribed promise” syndrome. Voters usually resort to the “ascribed promise” when they are looking for a “savior” — the candidate who will “save” them from poverty or oppression. They could face the serious risk of disappointing voters.
The better way is to have “expressed promises” that are deliverable and doable. It is even better if the candidate can use “metrics” like what private corporations do when they put together the so-called “key result areas” in their strategic plans.
An election “promise” needs a basis — some kind of proof that the source of the “promise” can deliver it. There seems to be only one clear, objective basis. It is called “track record” or “previous performance.”
That is what answers the voter’s question to the candidate which goes: “What have you accomplished in the past which proves that you can accomplish what you promise for the future?”
This is the same as what hiring specialists working for private companies do: Look for proof from the past that the applicant can perform the job.
This is how voters should do it.
After all, as we said several times in past columns, political aspirants are job applicants.
An elective post is a job. A candidate wants to be our employee. He or she needs to prove that he or she fits the job.
We can continue to listen to campaign promises. We must also continue to look for the proof on which the promises stand.
*For feedback, please email it to [email protected] or send it to Block 6 Lot 10 Sta. Barbara 1 cor. Bradley St., Mission Hills Subd., Brgy. San Roque, Antipolo City, Rizal.