Elections are fast approaching, and with them, the familiar hum of campaign activities will fill the air. Soon, we’ll hear jingles and see ads flood our screens, each one promising a brighter future, a better country. It’s what we all long for — leaders who are competent, whose proposals are sound and grounded in reality. Yet, as history has often shown, this ideal rarely comes to fruition.
As we gear up for yet another election cycle, I have a few thoughts to share — ideas that may sound unconventional but are worth considering if we’re to make our elections more than just a costly exercise in futility.
Public office is no trivial matter. It’s not a position for anyone who simply dreams of power but for those who are capable of steering the country toward meaningful progress. If we expect qualified individuals to manage complex sectors in the private industry, why should we not demand the same for those who hold public office? A law requiring candidates to possess a certain level of academic qualifications would ensure that only those with the necessary skills and knowledge make it to the top. Just as a doctor must have a degree to practice medicine, a politician should have the education to navigate the complexities of governance.
The cost of running for office has become prohibitive, often excluding well-intentioned, competent candidates who simply cannot afford the steep price of campaigning. Imagine a system where the state finances elections, covering the cost of campaigns so that candidates don’t have to dip into their personal savings or, worse, rely on questionable donations. Instead of spending millions on advertisements, candidates would focus on presenting their platforms and outlining clear, actionable plans. The money to fund these campaigns would come from the state, and candidates would have to earn it by proving their vision for the country. This shift could level the playing field, allowing voters to choose leaders based on merit, not financial clout.
One of the enduring frustrations with our political system is the myriad ways elected officials pad their incomes — per diems, allowances and bonuses that make their compensation system feel more like a game of loopholes than an honest salary. A simple yet revolutionary idea: set a fixed salary for all elected officials, with no extra perks. Their offices, staff, and vehicles would be provided, but their income would be strictly limited to this salary. This would encourage public servants to focus on the work, not the pay, while also reducing the temptations of corruption that arise from unnecessary financial incentives.
Rather than rely on large donors or corrupt practices, why not make the people themselves the source of election funding? In tax returns, a small box could be added where taxpayers can voluntarily choose to contribute a fraction of their taxes to a centralized fund designated solely for financing elections. The beauty of this idea is that it directly connects the people to the democratic process. Voters would know that the money they’re contributing is going to candidates with proven merit and qualifications — allowing citizens to fund their future without the strings of big money.
Finally, what if we adopted an electoral system similar to that of the United States? In this model, citizens would still cast their votes, but the final decision would rest with electors — individuals selected to represent the voters’ best interests. These electors would not be bound to follow the popular vote blindly; they would have the discretion to vote for the candidate they believe is truly the best fit for the role. While this may seem controversial, it could introduce a layer of thoughtful deliberation to the process, ensuring that the choice of leadership isn’t solely driven by fleeting popularity but by careful consideration of qualifications and vision.
These ideas are just that — ideas. I don’t claim to have all the answers, nor do I insist that any one of them is the perfect solution. But it’s time we push the boundaries, think outside the box and consider reforms that can genuinely make our elections more meaningful and our democracy stronger. The same old patterns have failed us time and time again, and perhaps it’s time for a change. What do you think?