Reynold MacPherson: Four Tests Before We Give Candidates and Parties Our Votes

An election asks us to entrust other people and parties with power over our shared lives. They will make decisions about taxation, public services, infrastructure and the rules under which we live. Their choices will affect people who voted against them, people unable to vote, and generations yet to come. Choosing them deserves more than a reaction to a slogan, a television performance or a promise that leaves us personally better off.

Educative leadership offers four useful tests: disciplined judgement, responsibility and accountability, relationality, and reflexivity. The language may sound academic, but the questions are practical. Can these people reason carefully? Will they answer for their decisions? How will they treat others? Can they learn?

These tests express a democratic moral purpose: helping people develop their capacity to understand public problems, participate in decisions and improve their shared circumstances. They apply across the political spectrum.

First, look for disciplined judgement.

Every party can identify problems. The harder task is explaining their causes and proposing remedies that are likely to work. Voters should ask candidates what evidence supports their policies, what alternatives they considered, and what uncertainties remain.

A promise to reduce living costs, for example, needs an explanation of how the reduction will occur, who will receive it and how it will be funded. A promise to improve public services needs credible provision for staff, facilities and implementation. Naming an ambitious target does not establish a workable policy.

Good judgement also recognises competing goods. Lower taxes, better services, reduced debt and investment in infrastructure can pull in different directions. Candidates should explain their priorities and trade-offs. Those who acknowledge a difficult choice give voters something more useful than those who promise that nobody will lose.

Voters have corresponding duties. We should check claims, distinguish evidence from repetition, and examine our preferred party’s proposals as critically as its opponents’.

Second, demand responsibility and accountability.

Political decisions distribute benefits, costs and risks. Responsible leadership makes that distribution visible. Who gains immediately? Who pays later? What happens to those with the least ability to absorb a mistake?

Cost-of-living relief deserves close attention, but so does its durability. Relief funded through additional borrowing may shift costs into future taxation or reduced services. Equally, cutting expenditure without examining consequences may create larger costs elsewhere. The test is whether the proposal offers defensible benefits at an affordable cost over time.

Debt reduction should therefore be assessed alongside the quality of spending and investment. Borrowing requires a convincing purpose and a credible repayment strategy. Promises of savings require enough detail to establish that essential capabilities will survive.

Accountability means identifying who is responsible, publishing meaningful information and accepting scrutiny. Ask candidates how progress will be measured, when results will be reported, and what will happen if their policy fails. An announcement is the beginning of a commitment; delivery is the test.

Third, examine relationality: how leaders work with others.

Democracy brings together people with different convictions, histories and interests. Leadership must make disagreement manageable while preserving people’s standing as fellow citizens.

Watch how candidates treat opponents, journalists, public servants and questioners at meetings. Do they answer the question? Can they describe an opposing argument fairly? Do they encourage understanding, or cultivate hostility toward a convenient enemy?

Respectful relationships do not require agreement. Firm criticism, organised opposition and peaceful protest are essential democratic practices. The issue is whether leaders engage with reasons and evidence while recognising the rights of those who challenge them.

Participation also needs substance. Consultation should provide accessible information, genuine opportunities to influence a proposal and an explanation of the final decision. Voters should ask whose voices are heard, whose are missing and how elected representatives remain answerable to the public.

A democratic process must protect equal political standing and minority rights while enabling legitimate decisions. Neither electoral victory nor consultation removes the obligation to justify how power is used.

Fourth, look for reflexivity: the capacity to question, learn and correct.

No party possesses complete knowledge. Policies encounter circumstances their designers did not anticipate. Leaders need the confidence to act and the humility to reconsider.

Ask candidates to identify a judgement they have changed and explain why. Have they acknowledged a failed policy? Can they distinguish a sound purpose from an ineffective method? Will they publish evaluations and change course when the evidence warrants it?

Changing position can reveal weakness or wisdom. The distinction lies in the reasons. Quietly abandoning a promise for convenience differs from openly revising a policy because its consequences proved harmful.

Voters need the same discipline. We should ask what evidence would change our minds. If the answer is “nothing”, loyalty has displaced judgement.

Together, these principles offer a practical way to compare candidates and parties. Write down their main commitments. Examine the evidence, costs, democratic implications and arrangements for review. Record uncertainties as well as strengths.

There will rarely be a flawless choice. Honest voters can apply these tests and reach different conclusions because they reasonably weigh purposes differently.

What matters is the quality of the judgement we make and the public conduct we reward. Our vote should encourage leaders who explain difficult choices, use resources responsibly, respect democratic participation and learn from experience. Democracy becomes stronger when citizens expect these qualities—and practise them themselves.

*Reynold Macpherson is a retired professor, former chief executive and former Rotorua Lakes councillor. He writes about ethics, governance, educative leadership and public policy. This article was sourced from his Blog HERE.