Newly elected public servants started their terms of office this week. As with any beginning, there was excitement and a lot of hope.
In Metro Manila, there were many reports about new local leaders embarking on laudable projects. For instance, the mayor of Manila has promised he would restore parks and other heritage sites, as well as clear the sidewalks that have been inhabited by vendors for too many years. In Pasig City, the mayor said he would do away with the odd-even number coding scheme that he characterized as disjointed and unjust.
These two mayors are two of the younger leaders who have toppled big names and established dynasties in their area. They have been called Davids, who challenged and defeated the Goliaths who have ruled their cities for many years. They had less resources and far less experience owing to their youth, but their constituents took a chance on them because they promised change from the ineffective leadership of the incumbent.
It heartening to see that these two Metro Manila executives, like many of their counterparts in the provinces, are off to a promising start. They are not strangers to governance. They are aware of the problems and limitations of their LGUs. They have no doubt spoken to ordinary residents and obtained a sense of their aspirations.
They are aware of what they themselves could do to make the LGU function better. Most importantly, they do not harbor any illusions that their term of office would be breeze. Aside from the things that need to get done, they must also deal with the harsh realities of politics and the risks they face in introducing their own brand of leadership. There will be resistance, even after victory at the polls. People are creatures of habit, even if they know that change is good for them.
The initial euphoria is understandable, but this must be tempered with the acknowledgment that these new leaders’ best ally is time. The best programs are well thought out, carefully planned, and painstakingly executed. They often come with challenges–—and some will appear insurmountable.
There are also common pitfalls they should avoid. For instance, they should resist the temptation to reject the predecessors’ worthy initiatives out of mere spite or pride. Humility serves a person well, and they should have no problem sustaining good programs because ultimately, they are there to serve the people and not boost their personal brand.
Meanwhile, their constituents must stop deluding themselves. These new leaders are neither saviors nor heroes. They are simply individuals who auditioned for a job and got it. They have admirable qualities, no doubt, but they are never perfect. Much heartbreak comes from idolatry, and if we must change anything at all, it should be this mindset. Instead, we must be ready to draw the line when our leaders commit something that negates their positive traits. The worst will come if these young public servants morph, over time, into a clone of what they purported to slay in the first place.
It’s a promising start, indeed, but we’d rather wait for a satisfying end after three years.
