A punster once said that candidate statements can be categorized into three: mean, meaningless and the motherhood.
The first is often delegated to surrogates. And in this election we see proxies constantly piercing their adversaries’ statements for weaknesses as if to deflate their numbers one pointed quote at a time.
Meaningless are most of the statements dished out by their propaganda machine. Their daily press release is a puree of a recycled advocacy, garnished with new quotes, and sprinkled with Googled facts.
Motherhood statements are the refuge of those who can’t offer specific solutions to problems.
This bias for the sweeping is due to the fact that they’re safe, they resonate across the voting spectrum, and they can’t be reviewed for lack of particulars.
Well, in this age of trolls, they can’t even be lampooned for lack of material. This is the classic “less talk, less mistake” stance.
So if a wannabe thunders “I will pave all roads in the country,” it is a catch-all message that can be blasted across the archipelago, no matter how disparate the road conditions are each in region.
Or if another promises “Jobs for all!” he or she avoids the nuances of the unemployed data, which disaggregates the age group, the geographical location, and even the educational attainment of the jobless picture.
Motherhood statements are for the intellectually lazy.
They don’t require study and need no research. So why tailor-fit a jobs agenda for the rural folk when it can be covered by the “jobs-for-all” pledge?
Or why create a retraining plan for the jobless half-a-million college graduates, or for the overseas Filipino workers who might soon head home due to the falling prices of the oil churned out by their host countries, when their concerns are captured by an all-purpose slogan?
The problem with a motherhood statement is that it is a classic cluster bomb, with its “to whom it may concern” payload. But what this election need are smart bombs with precise targets.
Candidates, who spend millions on polling data, should realize by now that this archipelago of 105 million souls is far from being homogenous.
The demands of each province are different from another. Truck traffic might be the headache of one city but for another it is the lack of cargo movement which is hampering its growth.
One town may be crying out for more roads but a port is what its neighbor needs. One could be drowning water while drought is the other’s quagmire. Same with regions. The development strategy for one cannot simply be carbon copied by another.
The problem with some nascent platforms of some candidates is that they treat the whole country as monolith made of the same material on which they can chisel their promises. Hence, the one-size-fits-all prescription to all problems.
It is also our mistake why the candidates’ solutions are on top of being uniform lack particulars as well.
For too long we have allowed them to dictate their plans when we should be demanding what we want. Instead of being initiators of programs, we have become mere receivers of their intentions.
We think the national plans they offer are enough when they should be localizing their programs. We’ve always been content with the bottomline when the brass tacks are more important.
Presidential candidates should be localizing their platforms—up to the city or town level if possible. For example, a candidate can issue his to-do list for this city, complete with where this road or school will be built, how many cops will be deployed, and make this his social contract with that place.
This performance pledge he binds himself to and must redeem when elected.
The advantage of localizing platforms is that it transforms general rhetoric into specific programs. It familiarizes a candidate with the development demands of a place. It break downs the national blueprint into local plans . It benchmarks what he will do for a locality.
Residents of towns and cities should start demanding from national candidates their plan for their place. They can even impose this requirement: No local platform, no right to campaign.
Locals can add this demand : If you want our votes, then show us your plan for our place first. If the latter would look like a bill of public works projects, then the better. As they say, details bare familiarity.
This is reversing the electoral dynamics. Instead of the candidates doing all the talking, locals can start doing all the demanding. A grassroots platform is the best antidote to motherhood perorations.
Here’s a tip to candidates: Anyone who can painstakingly cobble together a town-by-town program of action will be looked upon kindly by voters.
In a tight elections, going micro, pinpointing programs, customizing a platform to local needs might just provide the winning edge.
If you’re looking for a comparative advantage start by composing your plans for each and every town. Don’t just rely on an all-encompassing “balance Luzon” programs. Go specific. You may not be able to do a house-to-house campaign. But you can do a town-by-town listing of plans.
The adage “all politics is local” applies to all. Especially to those gunning for the highest office.