Light the wind of change.

As election season approaches, the construction of roads and highways accelerates, demonstrating the government’s commitment to front-loading expenditures and improving the risk-return framework for private businesses.

While people appreciate large-scale road maintenance and infrastructure projects as a return on their hard-earned money, the local perspective differs psychologically.

As the election season unfolds, local government officials, particularly those vying for reelection or aspiring for higher public office, are often perceived as prioritizing existing road upkeep due to their political motivations. However, this perception may not always align with the reality of their actions, sparking a need for deeper understanding and critical analysis.

Given that residents often voice their concerns about the poor condition of the roads and the inconvenience caused by road maintenance, it is necessary to delve deeper and consider the potential political motivations behind how elected officials prioritize and allocate resources for road maintenance. Understanding these motivations is not just a matter of curiosity, but a key step towards fostering a more informed and engaged citizenry, highlighting the importance of your role as a voter.

In the months leading up to the filing of the Certificates of Candidacy in October this year, it’s clear that streets are being rapidly repaired, and any pending road projects, maintenance, or new ones are being expedited.

Barangays affected by natural disasters and people struggling to go to work because of collapsed bridges or muddy roads are beginning to be noticed.

It’s reasonable to suspect that these actions are strategically timed and carried out with political motives rather than the public’s best interest. These activities seem to exploit the timing of the mayoral elections, manipulating road maintenance for political gain.

Why do they have to wait until the end of their term to finish all the pending road projects or promise to complete them if re-elected? Lack of budget is always the culprit, but money suddenly flows during the election season.

It is disheartening that politicians often prioritize new road construction over maintaining existing roads, which is insidious at some point, neglecting existing roads despite their crucial role in our daily lives.

During the campaign period, public work spending is banned. It means that national and local government units are prohibited from releasing funds for public works, construction, and hiring and moving government personnel. This ban is implemented to prevent the misuse of public funds for political purposes and not sway voters for specific national and local candidates.

Workers employed on a contractual or casual basis for public works projects may face undue influence and pressure from government officials vested with the authority to renew or terminate their employment contracts. This vulnerability can compromise their job security.

Historically, the enforcement of such bans has led to the suspension of ongoing construction projects, particularly those nearing completion, such as farm-to-market roads, bridges, and other similar infrastructure initiatives.

The disruption has significantly impacted the progress and completion of crucial public works, ultimately affecting the communities and areas reliant on these projects. Understanding the impact of the election season on public infrastructure will help us make informed decisions about local candidates.

The electoral cycle has a demonstrable hold on the maintenance schedules of local roads. These schedules adhere to established patterns and are subject to adjustments based on the demographic distribution of voters in each barangay (village) or locality.

Due to financial constraints, the allocation of budgetary resources tends to favor more prominent localities over smaller ones. This disparity in funding distribution can lead to jealousy among residents of smaller communities and may even drive migration as people seek better opportunities in larger areas.

Politicians frequently make grand promises to win over voters, but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. That is when we see actual results.