Under the Sun
‘Change’ a popular
but nebulous theme so farSWEEPING back the salt-and-pepper hair that covers the collar of his neat polo shirt, Bud thrusts his hands into the pockets of his crisp jeans and sighs deeply to keep tears from falling. He is among the dispirited disciples who have milled around Ed Case's campaign headquarters all Saturday night, waiting for results of the primary election contest.
The close numbers are heart-breaking.
"I have to vote for Lingle now," he declares, frustration creasing his darkly tanned face. "I don't want to, but I want things to change."
Bud is saying what a lot of people are saying. But this idea simply expressed as "change" is so tightly wound around the gubernatorial campaign it seems impossible to ease it away for a close look at what should change, why and how it will all take place.
Saturday night, Bud reeled off a catalog of issues ripe for change: schools, "the local people, our culture," Hawaiians, the economy, the environment, but he was ambiguous about the details. An all-encompassing "better" was the closest he came to giving change some form.
That goes without saying, but governing isn't an exact science. It is difficult to predict how loosening one knot in the bureaucracy will affect another. Making it easier for people to get a driver's license would be a change for the better. But what if the result is that wannabe terrorists are able to use the licenses to obtain other documents to hide their identities? There's no accounting for bad people exploiting a less cumbersome bureaucracy for their own purposes.
Before change, there first has to be a close examination of whether something is broken and how it came to be that way. Laws, regulations, modes of operations are put in place for valid reasons. Often with government, these have been added and tweaked as demands and functions have evolved. If rules and regulations bog down action, maybe they should be revised. But you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Take this notion, for example, that replacing the present school board with several regional boards would make the education system more accessible and accountable to parents and the community. Well, the board as it set up now is supposed to work that way. It has public meetings and hearings to set education policies and student standards. Anyone may go to these meetings, anyone may speak to board members and the board answers to the community at the voting booth.
Which brings up another common complaint: That the board with 14 members is too big and that people don't know who their representatives are, much less who's running for board seats. That's easily remedied. Call the Board of Education or log on to its Web site. As far as candidates, newspapers provide information and the state elections office posts bios on its Web site.
Is the problem that the board system really doesn't work and should be changed completely, or is it that citizens find it easier to blame a system for their inattentiveness or for their unwillingness to take the time to be informed? It may be both, but I don't think adding another layer of boards to the present one will help matters any.
Ed Case was perceived as a candidate for change, even though he comes from the party that Republican Linda Lingle has cast as the stalwarts for the status quo. Democrat Mazie Hirono's recent embrace of change is usually preceded by the words "responsible" and "positive," but she has yet to define her version. Lingle does a little better in her campaign brochures, but she hasn't said how she will bring about her change orders or what those changes will mean.
Bud desperately wants change. His sentiment, like those of so many others, may have something to do with feeling excluded. But the good thing about democracy is that you are only excluded if you allow yourself to be. That's one thing each of us can change easily.
Cynthia Oi has been on the staff of the Star-Bulletin for 25 years.
She can be reached at: coi@starbulletin.com.
