Municipal elections: candidates need to talk more about “how” to get things done

As the mayoral elections approach, candidates are starting to talk about their government plans. As expected, by the way. Most candidates in the more advanced urban centers have been pressed to disclose their programs and priorities. In other words, they are being asked to say what they would do. In some cases, the programs even contain quite specific goals.

What we need to expect, more and more, is a deeper discussion of “how” everything will be done as well. The programs are packed with “what,” but, in concrete terms, very little is said about “how” these plans will be taken off the drawing board and with what resources.

Everyone wants to improve education, health, mobility, infrastructure, and culture, but few talk, for example, about the so-called “administrative machine,” that is, the current capacity of city governments to manage their processes and what they need to do to improve their management capabilities.But we have to go beyond promises that are easy to make and pay more attention to those who show what will be done to take them out of speeches and turn them into reality.

This is basic management in companies. You cannot plan without making it very clear “how” everything will be done, demonstrating that it is viable, possible, feasible. And how it will be executed. It is also necessary to clearly identify which priority problems are to be solved, analyze the “root causes” that generate the problem, what corrective actions will be adopted and, just as important, what “action plan” will be put into practice, with all the relevant details about “how” everything will be done.

Each city – or even each region – will have different problems that will require specific actions. And the plans will have to be reassessed and adjusted, because things will never happen entirely as planned.

It would be great if politicians spoke a little more like managers of public resources. If they presented their government plans in a more scientific way, explaining what will be done. That would be a great contribution in these times of extremely low credibility for politicians.

Rationality and efficiency need to be topics included in the political discussion, especially at the municipal level, the one closest to citizens. Greater transparency will help educate society to become aware of the need for better use of resources.

But since candidates do not speak specifically about how things will be done and where the resources will come from, the electoral debate and citizens' voting decisions end up much more centered on a merely personal assessment of the candidates, helping to perpetuate the poor quality of local public management.

We know that “making promises” to win the voter's attention and vote is one of the easiest things to do. But how will they be kept? Is it possible? How much will it cost? Where will the resources come from? Are there resources available, or will taxes have to be raised? Who exactly will do it? When will it start? When will it end? What will the deadlines be? Who will benefit? Who will be harmed?

Campaign promises are essentially political marketing strategies aimed mainly at attracting the electorate and winning votes.

But we have to go beyond promises that are easy to make and pay more attention to those who show what will be done to take them out of speeches and turn them into reality.

This is basic management in companies. You cannot plan without making it very clear “how” everything will be done, demonstrating that it is viable, possible, feasible. And how it will be executed.

It is also necessary to clearly identify which priority problems are to be solved, analyze the “root causes” that generate the problem, what corrective actions will be adopted and, just as important, what “action plan” will be put into practice, with all the relevant details about “how” everything will be done.

Each city – or even each region – will have different problems that will require specific actions. And the plans will have to be reassessed and adjusted, because things will never happen entirely as planned.

It would be great if politicians spoke a little more like managers of public resources. If they presented their government plans in a more scientific way, explaining what will be done. That would be a great contribution in these times of extremely low credibility for politicians.

Rationality and efficiency need to be topics included in the political discussion, especially at the municipal level, the one closest to citizens. Greater transparency will help educate society to become aware of the need for better use of resources.

But since candidates do not speak specifically about how things will be done and where the resources will come from, the electoral debate and citizens' voting decisions end up much more centered on a merely personal assessment of the candidates, helping to perpetuate the poor quality of local public management.