Paper Criticizes Candidates of 'Limited Ability' Who Make 'Big Promises'

BBC Monitoring Service, Monsters and Critics.com:

In the hot market of the presidential election campaign, plenty of promises are given to the people, many of which are not even compatible with the country's potentials and capabilities. Why such empty pledges are made to the people is a question that presidential candidates have to answer... [ellipsis as published] There are also some capabilities and potentials that have to be heeded by the avowers and maybe even by the officials who are responsible for holding the election. READ MORE

Promoting election fervour and enthusiasm in people with the aim of getting more people to turn out at the polls is a general principle that everybody, especially the candidates, must pay heed to. The more people turn out at the polling stations, the more popular that election will be, and the regime can claim to enjoy more and better popular support. So if the candidates try to create more enthusiasm in people, and for that they vow more development and make economic and social pledges, it is per se a worthy cause and laudable action. Making promises is part of the candidates' propaganda and election campaigning. Propaganda is worthy of praise only if it corresponds to reality. Some realities pertaining to promises depend on the position and status of the candidates and their influence in the different layers of society. All people are not equal when it comes to their capability and ability in realizing their vows, especially in regard to social issues. Some have great expectations and lofty visions, yet they lack the practical ability and power to materialize their goals. Such people with limited ability should not make grandiose promises because at the practical stage they are bound to fail or encounter serious problems, and the consequence of such difficulties would harm the community as a whole.

Another part depends on the potentials and possibilities of the country. Some promises manage to attract a larger number of people, but the country's resources and possibilities do not permit their realization. One who makes such pledges, should he become president, would not only be personally incapable of addressing the demands and expectations that he himself had created in the minds of the people, but he would also create problems for the country and regime, since none of the system's authorities would be able to deliver the pledges he had made. Where a lack of realization of promises concerns the candidates only, it is the candidate that loses his prestige and credibility before the people; but where it concerns the country's lack of resources and potentials, it is the prestige and credibility of the government regime and the system's authorities that will be damaged, and their image will be tarnished.

Some of the promises made these days by the candidates actually do not concern the president and the sphere of his authority, like pledges regarding judicial affairs or legislative activity that has nothing to do with the chief executive. The same is true about issues that are higher than the three state branches and pertain to the domain of the leader's authority and prerogatives. For candidates to enter that domain and make promises that have nothing to do with his winning the race for the presidency is a form of deception and demagogy, or at least a sign of lack of sincerity. Would people who lack sufficient honesty and sincerity to talk to the people, and who make promises to them, be worthy of becoming president and winning the trust and confidence of the people!?

The above statements can be recapitulated in two global recommendations: The first is that candidates ought not choose their principal goal as winning the presidency; instead they should consider the position merely as an instrument and means for a higher end, namely rendering service to the people within the existing circle of possibilities and potentials. If candidates display such a degree of sincerity, and advance on the course of honesty and truth, they will surely be victorious, whatever the result might be. The second is that people are watching the campaign and propaganda of the candidates with utmost vigilance and awareness, and they separate realist individuals who are honest with the people and make practical and viable promises from others who lack such characteristics; and they will not vote for a person who makes impossible, impractical, and implausible pledges solely to deceive people and win more votes when he has no intention of delivering on the pledges and in fact cannot deliver what he has vowed because he has not promised only what can be done given his own ability and the country's potentials and resources.

This is basically a culture that needs to be institutionalized in the country. Our Islamic and revolutionary society must move on tracks and in a direction such that in future nobody would be able or would dare to adopt any course save that of sincerity and realism for attracting the interest and the votes of the people. Only such a culture and vision are worthy of the great Iranian nation.

Source: Jomhuri-ye Eslami, Tehran, in Persian 6 Jul 05 p 1