Every five years, the elec­torate has the op­por­tu­ni­ty to re­view the per­for­mance of the in­cum­bents dur­ing their time in of­fice. Cit­i­zens must de­ter­mine if that per­for­mance is wor­thy of an­oth­er chance to con­tin­ue the de­vel­op­ment agen­da or to clear up un­fin­ished busi­ness.

Al­ter­na­tive­ly, they must de­ter­mine if a re­set is nec­es­sary to car­ry the coun­try in a new di­rec­tion or whether an­oth­er par­ty can im­prove the per­for­mance of the out­go­ing ad­min­is­tra­tion. Which leader and which team have a bet­ter plan, a bet­ter pol­i­cy mix, and are the best fit? Which team will pro­duce bet­ter out­comes?

It is the du­ty and re­spon­si­bil­i­ty of every cit­i­zen to ex­er­cise their de­mo­c­ra­t­ic right to vote for a rep­re­sen­ta­tive and the par­ty of their choice and, in the process, elect a gov­ern­ment.

In ex­er­cis­ing their fran­chise, cit­i­zens must look past the rhetoric on the cam­paign trail and the promis­es. The promis­es can­not pay for them­selves. Gov­ern­ments gen­er­ate rev­enue by tax­ing cit­i­zens and their in­comes. Ul­ti­mate­ly, cit­i­zens must pay for these promis­es through high­er tax­es. Gov­ern­ments have a du­ty of care to man­age the coun­try’s fi­nances care­ful­ly.

Re­spon­si­ble cit­i­zen­ship does not end when a bal­lot is cast. Cit­i­zens must keep politi­cians hon­est by de­mand­ing per­for­mance and en­sur­ing they get the best bang for their tax dol­lars, and that their rep­re­sen­ta­tive must pro­duce demon­stra­ble re­sults for their time in of­fice.

The Gov­ern­ment’s re­spon­si­bil­i­ty is to do the best for its cit­i­zens with the avail­able re­sources. As a gen­er­al rule, the in­com­ing ad­min­is­tra­tion must ex­ceed its pre­de­ces­sor’s per­for­mance. Do­ing more with less is the de­sired per­for­mance stan­dard.

The two key in­gre­di­ents are com­mu­ni­ca­tion and ac­count­abil­i­ty. Yet, a com­mon com­plaint in most con­stituen­cies is that their rep­re­sen­ta­tive is most vis­i­ble at elec­tion time. This lends cred­i­bil­i­ty to the new face on the block, who will al­ways promise to be bet­ter and to be present when need­ed. As the say­ing goes, a promise is a com­fort to a fool.

At its core, the suc­cess of any democ­ra­cy de­mands that cit­i­zens must be ac­tive, not pas­sive, as the se­lec­tion, suc­cess or fail­ure of the Gov­ern­ment is their re­spon­si­bil­i­ty. Rep­re­sen­ta­tive democ­ra­cy re­quires ci­vil­i­ty and pa­tience.

Cit­i­zens have the right to dis­sent and to crit­i­cise their rep­re­sen­ta­tives and the Gov­ern­ment. Gov­ern­ments must un­der­stand that all must be treat­ed equal­ly and eq­ui­tably, ir­re­spec­tive of race, colour, class, creed, gen­der or po­lit­i­cal af­fil­i­a­tion. In this sense, peo­ple get the Gov­ern­ment they de­serve. It is not sim­ply an ex­er­cise per­formed once every five years.

Ac­count­abil­i­ty and com­mu­ni­ca­tion are a two-way street which re­quires reg­u­lar or pro­grammed in­ter­ac­tion be­tween the gov­er­nors and the gov­erned. What hap­pens in prac­tice is that man­i­festos are trot­ted out be­fore the elec­tion as a mar­ket­ing tool, not as a pol­i­cy com­pendi­um that will be em­bed­ded in a bud­get speech to show a gov­ern­ment's com­mit­ment to an ac­tion plan con­tin­u­ous­ly. All too soon, those plans, pro­grammes and poli­cies will be buried in the re­al­i­ties of of­fice on­ly to be re­pol­ished and rep­re­sent­ed at the next elec­tion.

This is where team­work and lead­er­ship be­come re­in­forc­ing at­trib­ut­es. Lead­ers must ac­cept re­spon­si­bil­i­ty for the out­comes, the vis­i­ble man­i­fes­ta­tion of suc­cess or fail­ure, and they must hold them­selves ac­count­able for their in­di­vid­ual per­for­mance and the per­for­mance of the team as­sem­bled to bring the plan to fruition.

Which team and which leader ap­pear best ca­pa­ble of mak­ing this a re­al­i­ty? If you can recog­nise this in a can­di­date, that is the per­son you should vote for.