Cut the Budgets of Areas That Did Not Support You? Political Favors and Political Revenge

It seemed as though the controversy over political party subsidies had only just died down when past remarks by Japan’s Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries became the next issue.

The story is that he told a meeting of his supporters that he would “cut the budgets” of municipalities that had not supported him in the previous election.

He explained that he had no recollection of making such a statement.

Politicians seem to have remarkably convenient memories. They remember favors received during elections forever, yet somehow forget inconvenient remarks completely.

Still, setting aside whether he actually said it, the story made me think about something else.

Is it really so wrong for politicians to deliver benefits to their supporters?

A Politician’s Worth Is Measured by the Money They Bring Home

One political commentator pointed out that pursuing this case too aggressively could amount to rejecting the entire practice of petitioning politicians for help.

I think that is a fair point.

We want better roads. We want subsidies for agriculture. We want a new public facility.

Taking such requests to the national government is also part of a member of parliament’s job.

“Thanks to you, we secured the funding!”

“Think nothing of it. I did it for our community.”

Then, at the next election:

“He has done a lot for us.”

And they vote for him.

It is perfectly easy to understand.

If every instance of this were condemned as pork-barrel politics, local politicians would be in serious trouble.

Their only option would be to return home during elections, shake hands, and shout their own names repeatedly.

Are Favors Acceptable but Revenge Is Not?

Giving priority to requests from areas that supported you is, to some extent, understandable as a political reality.

But the situation changes when it comes to cutting the budgets of areas that did not support you.

The former is returning a favor. The latter is retaliation.

Both connect election results with public spending. But listening to a community’s requests and working to secure funding is not the same as using administrative authority to disadvantage a community you dislike.

Politicians are expected to work for their supporters while simultaneously being required to treat everyone else fairly.

It is quite a difficult profession.

Even as a Cabinet Minister, You Never Forget an Electoral Grudge?

However, a member of parliament and a cabinet minister are not the same.

It is understandable for a locally elected representative to advocate for local interests. A minister, however, is responsible for administering the country as a whole.

If electoral grudges influence budget allocations, that creates a serious problem.

Even when a road is falling apart:

“That area did not support me in the last election.”

Even when its agricultural sector is struggling:

“They backed the other side.”

At that point, it is no longer public policy. It is merely a matter of personal relationships.

And the money being spent is not the politician’s own.

Repaying a favor from your own wallet may be a heartwarming story. But we cannot allow politicians to use the public’s wallet for both favors and revenge.

Why Not Make Budget Allocations an Election Pledge?

Whether the remark was actually made, and whether it affected real budget allocations, needs to be verified.

Still, listening to supporters’ requests is political activity. Delivering benefits to supporters is considered an achievement. But using power to retaliate against opponents is an abuse of public office.

The same budget can mean something entirely different depending on its purpose and how it is used.

Perhaps politicians should simply include budget allocations in their election promises.

“If I win, I will repair the roads in the areas that supported me!”

“Areas that did not support me will have to wait until the next election!”

Voters would certainly become more desperate.

Interest in politics might increase, and voter turnout might rise as well.

The residents of areas that backed the losing side, however, would spend the next four years dodging potholes while reflecting on the blessings of democracy.