Choosing your candidate

HAPPY WEEKEND
Gina P. Dizon

Asked a friend if she is going to vote for Candidate X and she said, “Tell me what he has done when he was in office”.

The performance record of a certain candidate is a much questioned basis for electing a candidate, so it goes. Voters naturally would ask what the official- turned-candidate has done during his/her term. And if the candidate has ‘sat’ for more than one term, the question demands a heavier answer. The performance record asked for would naturally ask what services were done by the candidate. Automatic reference is asked on the building of physical structures including hospitals, schools, a municipal structure, gymnasium, and roads.

Where physical structures don’t show, the persistent voter would look for non-tangible performance including social welfare assistance- oriented services like stipend increase of day care teachers and barangay health workers, or programmed assistance on educational endeavors to include support on students going on press conferences , sports tournaments , and quiz bee competitions among elementary and high school students.

Much as people’s trust was placed on an elected official to represent them, then he/she is expected to perform his/her duties with the guiding policy of public trust which includes doing away with corruption. Values of integrity and good governance would clearly show in a candidate’s good performance record un-tainted with corruption.

Where performance on physical infrastructure or social welfare don’t show, it shows that maybe the official-turned candidate must have been ‘busy’ performing regular administrative work or legislative meetings and has not introduced responsive programs or resolutions needed by the community. Or should the official introduced or implemented programs or introduced resolutions; such may have been corrupted or not availed of by the community in a wider scale.

Search for a good performance record also applies to a candidate who may not be a government official, I would think so, whether he/she was in NGO work or private business.

And if the candidate shows poor rating on performance, chances are, voters would not favor such candidate. And if that guy is a kailyan, I guess a half- hearted basis of one being a kailyan will apply as a choice.

Haven’t understood before this much- hankered guideline of one being a kailyan as choice for a candidate . Not until I overheard a kailyan having a hard time talking with a government official talking in a language different from the kailyan’s dialect. Nor was the official talking in Ilocano which made the kailyan twist his tongue to jibe with the Tagalog lingo of the government official.

Familiarity with a candidate has much to do with a voter’s choise. Of course, one would be choosing a candidate familiar with the voter’s origins, language, or similarities in ethnicity or places of origin. That much sought for approachability of a candidate makes a big difference to any voter wanting to avail of services from the government in a more relaxed manner. Of course, arrogance of a candidate is frowned at which may result to earning him/her lesser points. Public office is not a place for displaying arrogance.

Familiarity of a candidate is an ace. Where two candidates may be familiar to voters, other factors may come in to determine whom voters shall finally select.

The voter would also look for one who promises change. In a country like the Philippines where the impoverished lot seeks for change to change the present corrupt system in government, people seek for an unblemished candidate free of a corrupted image. So overpowering that the question of what a candidate has done to show his capability to lead can be blown over with the candidate’s untarnished record for idealism and clean image seemingly posing better life and better times ahead. With national surveys showing democracy icons Benigno and Cory Aquino’s son Noynoy leading in all surveys, the Filipino people are that desperate for change.