Do you recall our tirade against Andrew Holness’s outrageous promise to move the income tax threshold to $1.5 million? The Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP) Aubyn Hill said it would be cheap; independent estimates had a $32-billion price tag, and the experts were right, but did this change their minds? No! Did the promise work? They won!

Does this open us to more reckless promises? Maybe! Might voters choose a candidate on promises? We should decide how to treat with politicians’ promises as those who want the job badly will promise big, and being needy we may succumb. There should be consequences for people who do things they should not, and inane promises in a manifesto or speeches should be challenged and sanctioned.

The JLP won the last election against the run of play. The polls favoured the People’s National Party (PNP), but at the eleventh hour the JLP unleashed a raft of promises — including a whopping $1.5-million tax threshold; some $18,000 for well-off workers. One promise added $30-billion-plus to our debt and we don’t hear gunfire about the big minimum wage, which swayed the masses big time. There should be sanctions for this bait-and-switch tactic. So how do we fact-check and assess financing of promises before the vote?

Politicians are known to promise recklessly; many are economical with the truth, and some plain liars. In a public company they could be arrested for misleading shareholders or corporate malpractice, but public governance has a greater tolerance for dissimulation and mendacity. A businessman has a duty of care and protects shareholder value or is fired; a politician has no such duty to taxpayers. To the contrary, they put Jamaica in debt while their personal fortunes swell, and after some respite return to office and no one says a word. So, let’s equalise laws for public governance as for business. What else might we do? A promise is as good as the person making it, so get to know your candidates. Is there ever good reason for a politician to be economical with the truth? What if the truth may affect the economy or a negotiation or to withhold information so foreign enemies do not get it or keep a lid on internal party dissent which might affect overseas confidence? Are these acceptable?

So what mechanism might we use to verify or fact-check political promises or a manifesto? Our electoral office should be empowered to appoint an accounting firm to do due diligence. At base we need to confirm costs to implement a promise; can it be done from the Members’ of Parliament’s (MP) constituency development fund (CDF)? Some MPs pledge more than they are due and should be sanctioned. Does it conform to the items for which CDF may be used, and might the contractor general rule a promise of cash or goods as corrupt? This due diligence on promises is crucial and must be reported on well before voting day.

In time a party manifesto would be a statement of philosophy, intent, pace, direction; not prescriptive or promise items with finance impact. A campaign would be responsible; the character, experience and values of candidates upfront, so we verify credentials and why he is running. To know local needs is passé as all community problems are water, jobs, roads, schools, health care, garbage, and housing and he must advocate stridently. But the value an MP adds to legislation, committee work, or the executive is where he makes a difference as roads, water, etc, are usually above his pay grade.

We are about to have a by-election in St Andrew South Western so let’s test things. Why not promote JLP and PNP candidates on their qualification, experience, values; voluntary work, plans for the area and promises? Compare them. This is no high-stakes contest, so we can experiment. Public education should allow voters to know the research, analysis, and decisions which a good MP may face — some live under the radar to hide their deficits. We wasted 55 years, so let’s elect smart, experienced and conscious MPs who were respected before they came to politics. Those who get the best pay cheque of their lives as an MP may be wrong for public service, as they will not leave when they should. We need more successful people who sacrifice a bit to serve, some poor but wise, not those who are in for money. Selah.

Public holidays and productivity

Our public holidays may disrupt national production so we should get in sync with growth plans. Our culture means a Tuesday holiday begets a lazy Monday, a tardy Wednesday start-up, and Friday is dress-down day with borderline porno outfits not fit for working; a week’s production lost. Firms which use press, kiln, mill, boiler, climate control devices consume lots of energy so shutdowns and start-ups are costly and holidays adversely impact work routines, productivity and growth. Cabinet must sync holidays to give us long weekends, give factories long runs to max production, and we have a win-win deal. The Economic Growth Council should make recommendations to Cabinet. Stay conscious!

Franklin Johnston, D Phil (Oxon), is a strategist and project manager. Send comments to the Observer or franklinjohnstontoo@gmail.com.