Reimagining reelection: What truly matters after winning again
Local elections are over. Incumbents proudly showcased their accomplishments while in office for the last three or six years. They highlighted completed infrastructure projects, such as school buildings, hospitals or health centers, roads, bridges, flood control structures, and the like. They trumpeted these tangible outputs as their accomplishments. Their constituents, especially those who directly benefited, were thankful. For this alone, most local officials considered themselves worthy of reelection or another term. And their supporters agreed. Just go over their fawning comments on Facebook.
But it’s time for constituents to adopt a more thoughtful and discerning approach when evaluating reelection bids. When it comes to infrastructure, they must look beyond what has been built and ask: What community problems were these projects meant to address or solve, and have they?
Tangible outputs are only the beginning. A school building, for instance, is not just a structure. It’s a step toward improving education outcomes. A hospital or health center should result in increased access to medical care and better health-seeking behavior. Roads and bridges should enable more people to find work, grow their businesses, or access markets and services, ultimately leading to more food on the table and higher disposable incomes.
The completion of infrastructure projects is not the end goal. Local officials must follow through with strategies and actions that help ensure these projects contribute to resolving the problems they were meant to address. After all, these projects are funded by public money—taxes paid by the very people they are meant to serve.
Community problems cannot be solved overnight, and three years may not always be enough. However, some projects yield immediate benefits. A repaired flood control system may instantly reduce or eliminate flooding. But sustainability is key. Can the community maintain the infrastructure? If not, the problems will return. That’s why good local leaders must go beyond construction. They must invest in capacity-building so constituents can take ownership of these assets.
Even local officials known for receiving awards must be held to a higher standard. Awards are not enough. They must present evidence of lasting success, long-term results, and meaningful impact. Progress should not be defined solely by the prosperity of big businesses. If the majority of poor constituents continue to live in hardship while a few prosper, that is a monumental injustice.
In many local government units, economic growth benefits only those who already have wealth, businesses (legitimate or otherwise), or high-paying jobs. Meanwhile, the poor constituents, who make up the majority of the electorate, remain poor or fall further behind.
Some local officials might argue that long-term outcomes fall outside their technical mandate. But if they proudly call themselves the “fathers” or “mothers” of their LGUs, they must embrace responsibility for both the present and the future. That includes the moral obligation to ensure that public funds lead to lasting, inclusive progress, not just short-term achievements or photo opportunities.
NONO FELIX,
