IT’S that part of the democratic cycle when candidates show the best sides of themselves as they persuade their constituents to vote for them.
Often, they talk about their priority issues and what they intend to do – or, in the case of incumbents, what they intend to keep on doing – in office to address these concerns. They harp on their credentials or track record, if any. They stand alongside other candidates with whom they have formed political alliances. Whether sincerity or temporary convenience drove their decision to do so is anybody’s guess.
When these hopefuls get a chance to hog the microphone during rallies, they muster everything in their power to come across as personable, compassionate winners. The desperation in their voices varies depending on their current standing in surveys, scientific or otherwise.
Sometimes they cannot help being blinded by the lights; they reveal too much information about themselves in what they say, how they say it, or even what they do not say. They get the illusion that the people applauding them are an accurate representation of all the approving voters who would sweep them to victory.
On stage, we get glimpses of the kind of person that the candidate is through the jokes they tell, their choice of topic, how they regard their opponents or political patrons alike. Are they able to play to the gallery or do they look uncomfortable in front of a crowd?
But stages are deceptive because a significant part of the job is done when nobody is looking.
It is at these moments, when politicians sit down and translate the input they have gathered on the ground to actual laws or policies, that they will be tested. Whose interests will they champion if a conflict arises between their constituents’ welfare and their own? What will they do in the face of temptation? What lines are they willing to cross to get what they want?
These last few weeks of the campaign, and amid all the noise and the posturing, may voters seek to know more so they can vote better.