Political slogans are part of elections all round the world. They try to encapsulate a simple attractive catchphrase to make the voter support their candidate. They usually promise a better world and try to energise the voter: “Yes We Can”, “Tough on Crime” “The Buck Stops Here”.
The trouble with election slogans is that they tend to be empty, devoid of real content. At best they promise Motherhood and Apple Pie: an essential part of life that no-one can disagree with and a food that everyone likes.
Maybe the Jordanian equivalent is Fatherhood and Mansaf? There were certainly a lot of slogans on display in January before the elections. But I wonder how many generated a real debate on policy?
No doubt in the election meetings and campaign tents there was a debate on the policies for the next Parliament. Did this stimulate critical analysis, probing questions and a mature exchange of views?
Now that the election is over, the difficult chapter follows. Now elected politicians have to put into action the promises they have made. Political history is littered with broken promises, failed expectations and frustrated voters.
Political accountability is all about keeping promises, implementing a policy platform and delivering the better future that was captured in the candidate’s slogan and set out in his or her programme.
Often, harsh reality of office makes delivery tough. Being a candidate is easy because you can criticise with impunity. Just as being in opposition gives you the luxury of not having to carry through your proposals. But being in office is different: when you have the responsibility of taking decisions that have an impact on people’s lives, the painful reality can be acutely uncomfortable.
For example, a slogan or promise of “No New Taxes” is easy for a candidate who doesn’t have to explain all the details of an economic strategy. But once in office and the economic figures are revealed and examined, the full extent of say, a budget deficit or the extent of public borrowing can make the newly elected politician think again.
But he has to do his duty to his country and try to take the steps necessary to reduce the deficit and cut public spending – even if that makes him or her unpopular.
Ideally there should be no discrepancy between the slogans and the policy delivery. Proper debate before an election, would ensure that the candidates’ promises are tested in detail and prevent surprises for voters after the results have been declared.
But a perfect match between promises and delivery would be naive. Ultimately a politician will be judged on his or her record of getting things done and making a difference. That means doing the business of good government by implementing fair, comprehensive and effective policy programmes.
The reality is that slogans will always sound and taste good. The proof of the pudding – and of the mansaf- is in the eating.
Speaking of mansaf..have you tried it? Would love to invite you for lunch!
I totally agree with you Mr Peter Millett,
Most slogans that have been raised during the candidates’ campaigns carried a general perception showcasing problems without genuine and practical answers to the challenges…..They only concentrated on the generalities without going into an in depth debate over how to translate their promises into feasible actions….sadly most people are taken by those fiery slogans believing that those candidates would be holding a magic wand that can make there dreams come true in one move…..
I agree with you in practice, but I think you’ve missed an essential point about democracy – elections are only “popularity contests” to the extent the voters allow them to be so.
The responsibility for the impact of glib slogans and promises, not backed by serious debate and understanding, lies at the feet of the electorate rather than the candidates.
A common argument against this principle runs along the lines of “but the voters don’t understand the full picture.” This is, if you think about it, an argument against democracy as a whole.