A Politician's New Year Resolution!

J. Roughan

7 January 2010

Honiara

 

These days are a great time to make New Year Resolutions! Big Smokers, for instance, may promise themselves to stop smoking or at least cut down on the number of cigarettes smoked each day. Others, on the heavy side, may promise themselves to stop eating too much so as to lose some weight. Many people in different walks of life make New Year Resolutions about one thing or another.

 

May I suggest, in this the year of National Elections, that budding politicians but especially those seeking to gain back their parliamentary seat, promise to visit a medical doctor. Why? To get a physical check-up! Before a candidate begins campaigning, he should make sure his body is really up the difficulties of the elected position.  Be able to share with voters during campaign tours that a medical doctor has given them a thorough exam and has declared they are in reasonable health. They do not suffer diabetes, their blood pressure is under control and their heart is in good shape. The doctor is reasonably sure that It would still be ticking strong while in office for the next four difficult years of Parliament.

 

Of course the Constitution is silent about physical health. The framers of this document took for granted that those aspiring to the highest of offices in the land would be in reasonable good health. The Constitution, however, is quite clear that a person seeking high office must be of sound mind to carry out the onerous duties of office. When it comes to physical health, then, the Constitution writers just took it for granted that a politician's physical health should be a given.

 

Unfortunately, however, many of the present members of parliament leave much to be desired. Three of the original 2006 elected members--Ulufa'alu, Samuel and Sanga--have already passed away. Another four members--Kauwa, Hune'ehu, Kanairara and Sitai--are seriously sick men and find it increasingly difficult to fulfill their duties to the nation and to the people of their constituency. How many more of the present house are in the same boat? 

 

The sicknesses I speak of are not bad cases of malaria, a dose of pneumonia or some other kind of temporary ailment. As serious as these diseases can be, they are treatable and basically curable. However, diabetes, cardio-vascular difficulties and stoke are not simple ailments but in reality life threatening ones. Malaria can be treated and cured within a few days if proper medicine is taken and doctors orders followed. Not so those who suffer diabetes, heart trouble or stroke. These are serious conditions and are life threatening! It's hard to stay on top of one's job with such ailments and do the work called for.

 

Our people are terribly forgiving! But it's wrong for a seriously sick person to present himself to the electorate when it's clear that the politican in question suffers serious health conditions that could probably prevent him from carrying out his duties of office. As said previously, the sickness I speak of is not a temporary one like malaria, a serious cold or skin infection but those which medical science has no cure at hand. Office pressures especially in parliament where one is on the national stage, are exactly the types of stresses which make diabetes, stroke, cardio-vascular weaknesses, etc. most difficult to treat.

 

Yes, there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits a seriously sick man running for parliament. What I ask for here is making one's  physical well being part of the public debate when choosing the best person for parliament. The nation doesn't have sufficient funds at hand to cover new elections when a member dies in office from sicknesses, well known before election day. We owe it to our people to offer them the healthiest, best and most qualified person to represent them in Parliament's high office.

 

A routine doctor's office visit, asking for a thorough medical check up and seeking a doctor's certificate to inform voters of the constituency that all is well should be sufficient. There is no need to detail the candidate's health condition but just a doctor's verification that the said person   suffers no major health problems which would interfere with a parliamentary work load once in office. 

 

If every candidate produces such a doctor's health certificate then the whole campaign would be conducted on a level playing field. Those refusing to comply and simply claiming they are in the best of health, send out a mixed message. If they are in such fine physical shape as they claim, why don't they prove it by producing a doctor's certificate? Let voters then make up their own minds what is it that the candidate seems to be hiding.