The elephant in the room — the unsaid in election promises

False promises rank alongside the sin of omission when the outcome promised is known to be unachievable, writes Gerrard Eckhoff.

ELECTION time, especially, can see the occurrence of a strange metamorphosis. Candidates promise to understand and serve the will of the people, yet can soon change from servant to master. It is not what is said but what is not said — that is concerning.

Yes, space is limited, but for a photoshopped candidate to state he/she is in favour of something equivalent to healthy families, clean rivers, blue skies, transparency and accountability is not particularly helpful. Examples of sound judgement would be.

The ‘‘sin of omission’’ is hardly an issue that keeps us all awake at night, but during the election period the impact of deliberate omission can be profound.

Reports to and from councils or governments can often leave out information crucial to enable a full public understanding of a given issue, especially if the likely outcome will change if the omission is included.

Omission is therefore often deliberate to help foster a misconception of any given reality.

Nor is the deliberate omission of important information solely the preserve of central and local government. Verbal gymnastics is commonplace.

False promises rank alongside the sin of omission when the outcome promised is known to be unachievable.

Peace studies at the University of Otago has a laudable purpose yet the lofty goal has never led to the end of any conflict or even lessened one.

The Greek Pericles said if you want peace, prepare for war, which is a far more honest and realistic approach given the history of the human condition.

Curiously, the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies omits to inform the public of its success rate. A former prime minister (Helen Clark) once famously but incorrectly stated ‘‘we live in a benign environment’’.

Such a happy condition may have lasted for a few weeks in the world before business as usual (which was entirely predictable) resumed.

The promise to end child poverty is another example. Nothing could be more appealing yet the complete failure (omission) to remind us of continuing past failures (or even success) to end child poverty — anywhere — is compelling evidence of the political hope that some of the public are hearing of populist solutions for the first time.

Taxing the rich to end child poverty has considerable appeal.

Such a move would also and unsurprisingly include many of the wealthy if they thought for one moment that more tax was the answer to end poverty.

If it was, most countries would have solved the issue years ago.

Predator free by 2050 along with carbon neutrality are but two more examples of the sin of omission. These outcomes require so much more than comforting words from politicians which simply leads to increased expectation which, left unfulfilled, is followed by resentment.

The halftruth is often taken to an art form at election time and usually contains some deceptive elements as to the risk of failure of a given project.

The Dunedin hospital rebuild appears to be heading in a direction where the public have little idea of how many beds and wider facilities will be built due to ‘‘inflationary pressures’’.

Whether or not crucial data reflecting the final outcome is being withheld at this time is a moot point and further exemplifies the sin of omission. It’s all rather strange as we the ratepayer and taxpayer are paying the piper, yet updated information of costs is withheld.

The housing problem and its obfuscation is simply too obvious to bother with elaboration.

Society (by majority) appears to favour decisions being made to omit/ignore hard economics in favour of softer economics. The ‘‘left’’ set aside the hard solutions in favour of soft landings due to electoral realities which all political parties exercise to a greater or lesser degree. Doing so perpetuates ongoing failures in many sectors while still convincing enough voters that the left really does care more but just not enough to change the reality.

We all tend to ignore others’ limited subjective experience in favour of our own absolute truth which can also be based on limited subjective experience. Too often a particular and isolated belief exemplifies any genuine understanding of life’s realities.

An old Hindu story is told of some blind men who had no experience nor understanding of what an elephant looks like. An elephant was presented to the men and each was asked to describe a particular but different part of an elephant that each was comfortable to touch and feel. One felt a leg, one the trunk, another the tail and one the tusk. Each man knew his description of the elephant was correct, yet each was wrong as it was based on their own very limited experience of one area of an elephant.

Conflict then occurred because each man was correct, yet each conclusion was wrong as their personal experience of one area of the elephant was far from a total reality. Their opinion was subjective and ignored each other’s opinions.

So oft in theologic war

The disputants, I wean

Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean

And prate on about an elephant Not one of them has ever seen

—John Godfrey Saxe (181687)

The public is soon to be asked to vote for representatives on extremely limited information. The requirement for greater diversity to rank ahead of judgement and competency on councils does not bode well for management of multimilliondollar asset bases.

The parable of the elephant and the blind men shows that the more things change the more they stay the same.

❛ we live in a benign environment