The CoalitionforCayman (C4C) have come under fire and some ridicule from their political opponents, namely Cayman’s two parties, The Progressives (PPM) and the United Democratic Party (UDP) for not producing an election manifesto.

The Progressives hit out at the C4C yesterday (15) saying, “…the country is still wondering what the C4C stands for and what is their position on the challenges the country faces.  It is unimaginable that a group of candidates who claim to be the answer to Cayman’s myriad of problems has been unable to put together a plan which they are prepared to commit to and be held accountable for.  How can any group of candidates which wishes to be taken seriously not produce a manifesto? If they are unable to agree on a plan for the country before the elections, what chance is there of them agreeing on one if they are elected?”

And the UDP also yesterday:

“This is not the time to go backwards in time. We cannot afford to hand Cayman over to the inexperienced who now want to play with the future of our Islands. Where is the C4C manifesto? What do they stand for? What are their policies? It’s simple – they don’t have any. There is no substance, just hot air and hollow slogans.”

Should the C4C have published a manifesto?

I would say an emphatic “YES”!

It was very noticeable at the C4C’s televised political meeting in West Bay that all their candidates had nothing to quote from in the form of what they would actually do to put the country back on its feet if they were elected. They couldn’t quote from a united plan showing how they would actually achieve this difficult feat. All they could do was say the country needed their expertise and to bemoan the party system and its terrible record here when they governed.

If you don’t produce a cohesive plan of action, even if you are independents, but you are a coalition, you are in big trouble and inviting attacks on your credibility.

A manifesto is an opportunity to tell people why they should vote for you! It is your chance to explain what you will do to represent the people who elect you!

Wikipedia describes a “Manifesto” as “a published verbal declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government. A manifesto usually accepts a previously published opinion or public consensus and/or promotes a new idea with prescriptive notions for carrying out changes the author believes should be made. It often is political or artistic in nature.”

Both parties have produced impressive manifestos, although most of the wording is vague saying “we will look at”, “investigate”, “put forward”, etc.

Whilst I have said “YES” the C4C should have put forward a manifesto, I am also cynical about how much actually promised in them is successfully carried out, if they are in fact even investigated and put forward. Most are placed in the pipeline in an order depending on how, now you are in government, you actually rate its performance.

At least, you can point a finger at the government of the day, wag your finger at them and say, “I voted for you because….”

In Malaysia on May 13^th 2013 the Appeals Court there made a ruling that held “an election manifesto is not legally enforceable”.

The three-member panel Court of Appeal judges struck out a civil suit brought by a group of single mothers who were seeking RM10.9 million in allowances over the Selangor government’s alleged failure to fulfill its manifesto presented for the 2008 General Election.

The judges said a person who was aggrieved over the non-fulfillment of an election manifesto cannot seek to enforce the manifesto.

They said [aggrieved persons] remedy was of a political one citing English court cases including one by renowned judge Lord Denning who had pronounced that voters’ remedy for non-fulfillment of election promises lies in the ballot box.

So, what were the C4C frightened of in not producing a manifesto? Read on

The C4C have produced what they call a “National Priorities Plan” and for some absurd reason state: “This document is not a manifesto; it is an outline of national priorities. Manifestos have generally been long documents containing big, lofty promises by politicians, most of which can never be fulfilled. We are not interested in providing you with an unattainable ‘wish list’.”

Oh, come on now.

Just read their executive summary and compare it to the PPM and UDP MANIFESTOS and see if you can spot the difference?

Their plan doesn’t actually say how they are going to achieve it. They also use phrases such as “we must”, “we need”, “create”, “review”, “goal”, “develop”.

All words used in all manifestos I have ever read.

It talks of the benefits of coalition governments naming them all without saying they are actually parties and not independents. So what they are telling us is that parties work together actually very well.

What they don’t say is that with a coalition it is often very difficult to make the very hard decisions necessary to turn a country around and are unpopular with the voter. Every good gardener will tell you that you have to prune to get successful blooms. It is because hard decisions were not taken and the runaway train was allowed to continue that the world is in the mess it is.

Many coalition governments have broken down and people are back to the polling stations again with no governance.

None of this is recorded in The Plan.

We have to swallow a coalition that is not a party and now a plan that is not a manifesto.

My head aches.