Every election advocacy group, every single time elections come rolling around, releases a set of criteria intended to describe the ideal candidate. Many times, these criteria are tailored to fit the predilections of whatever advocacy group is releasing it—a church-based group, for instance, would emphasize godliness, whereas a civic organization would probably underscore the need for community building credentials. But as helpful as these criteria may sometimes be, they almost always focus on suitability of the individual candidate. But even checking off all the boxes (a rarity in itself) won’t guarantee that a candidate will be a good public servant. To be honest, no such guarantee is possible anyway.
So instead, we should focus on giving the public—voters and nonvoters alike—a better set of standards to judge elected officials by. That way, voters can have a better handle on how to evaluate the suitability of politicians for elected office. I call these standards
“deliverables.”
Elected politicians owe the electorate and the nation at large, three major deliverables: accountability, competence and transparency. Being an accountable public official means not just giving lip service to the mechanisms of accountability already hardwired into the laws; it means believing in being responsible so much that belief forms part of one’s decision-making process. This mind-set was best exemplified by the great Ramon Magsaysay, who insisted that every official act he took had to be defensible in Plaza Miranda. Every politician now will say that they adhere to this exacting standard, of course, but the trick is to discern who among them actually does.
Needless to say, elected officials also owe the people competence. Elected officials must not just have the ability to win votes—sadly, the lowest possible bar ever set for anyone aspiring to elected office and the one seemingly most favored by far too many politicians—they must also have the ability not to make a mess of things. One of the core precepts of bioethics—“first, to do no harm”—should be considered as an unwritten rule for everyone who aspires to public office. Again, this may be a ridiculously forgiving standard, but considering that even well-intentioned incompetence can have catastrophic consequences, it still bears emphasizing.
As must transparency be. Transparency only means that the elected official must, at all times, be welcoming of public scrutiny of her acts. Some would make a distinction and say that transparency should only be expected only with regard to a politician’s official acts; I think the distinction is illusory. Once elected, there can be no practical delineation between what a politician does as an elected official and as a private person. This is the lesson of that old maxim exhorting elected officials to be “like Caesar’s wife”—not simply to be actually beyond reproach, but also to appear to be of unimpeachable character.
Accountability. Competence. Transparency. These are the three fundamental things elected officials owe, not just their voters, but everyone they claim to serve. When the campaign period comes, or even before it does, politicians gunning for office ought to be able to show the vigilant voter that, on top of being famous or recognizable, they can bring these
deliverables to the table.