Firstly, a good candidate will succeed based on how good he is - he does not have to belittle his opponents to make himself seem better.  One of the things that had most impressed me about my candidate of choice was that when I went to hear him speak, he spent the whole time saying what he has done or will do, and almost none of it criticising the actions of opponents.  And most definitely not badmouthing or lying about the opponents themselves.

If someone is always ‘downing' the other side/s, it makes one wonder what they themselves have to offer, because if it was something good, surely they'd be saying it.  And if it was indeed good, its benefit should be obvious.  At worst, a bit of background would have to be given to point out why it was a better choice.

Here lies a difference not everyone perceives.  There is a difference between stating legitimate facts that might reflect badly on someone involved because they directly relate to the matter at hand, such as saying ‘Candidate X spent such-and-such amount on [something] whereas I would spend [different amount]', and saying ‘Candidate X wasted public money', while not stating the specifics and what you plan to do better on the same issue.

There is also a matter of context to be considered.  What was the reality of the period, the political, social, financial climates at the time something was done or not done, the demographics of Eilat, its sources of revenue, the resources that were available then, etc.?  Things feasible at one time might not be at another.  Policies that suit in one given situation might be completely inapplicable or even harmful in a different one.  Thus direct comparisons of ‘then' and ‘now' are not always appropriate.  An example can be the matriculation figures:  Were the exams done in the same way at the times being compared, or they were administered in different degrees of difficulty, quantity, time spreads, formats, etc. during one period versus the other?

The various angles of an issue also need consideration.  Again using matriculation figures as an example:  Is it better to force all students down the ‘theoretical' path and risk lower percentiles (‘only _% of the total students in Eilat succeeded'), or to offer vocational or other alternative schools that do not do matriculation, which would mean a much lower percent of the ‘total students in Eilat' would get matriculation certificates, but a higher percentage of those sitting the exams would pass?  Or hotels/tourism:  Are all of Eilat's proverbial eggs in the single basket of tourism, or should they be?  And accordingly, should more resources be spent on developing tourism, or should more go on developing alternate sources of income?  Or can/should both be done?

What are the long-term implications of the candidate's proposed policies?  Continuing the matriculation example - will these academics (theoretical) or these welders and electricians (vocational) come back to Eilat to live and work, be near their families, and bolster Eilat's economy?  Will developing tourism alone restrict the economic and professional diversity of the city and its people, apart from the obvious risks of bad seasons?  Or, if we devote resources to alternatives at the expense of developing tourism, will we be cutting off the only remaining branch on Eilat's economic tree?

Considering that municipalities, like everyone else, must work within a budget, and often money is earmarked for one particular area of activity and cannot be used for another, how creatively do the candidates think about alternative methods for achieving things?  How can the City expand its services and reduce its spending?  I'm reminded of the phrase ‘give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime' comes to mind. 

Past examples I've seen in Eilat include creating volunteer groups to provide services until such time as a municipal or other official entity can be established to provide them.  Or getting investors or donors to put up funds for at least some businesses or services, even if just to get them rolling until they become self-sustaining.  Or getting people enthused about doing things to in a way that would save the City resources through devising situations where both sides benefit, the residents getting something they otherwise wouldn't, and the City saving some money to use for additional services.   

There was an article in the Hebrew press about the City removing campaign banners from ‘common areas' of apartment buildings.  Leaving aside the argument as to whether the City is the authority that can decree such matters, or the degree of balance regarding which parties' banners were removed and whose remain in place, another element arises:  When the City does an act, how much of it is simply the City doing ‘business as usual' and how much of it is the incumbent mayor using the powers at his disposal to further his own campaign?  Yet while this access to municipal resources is handy for use by an incumbent running for office, it can also hamper him when basically everything he does is interpreted as having political motivation behind it.  The former puts him in a ‘can't lose' situation but the latter puts him in a ‘can't win' one.  The motivation in some matters, like that of the campaign banners, would appear pretty clear; but that in others, such as beautifying the city's parks and public areas, could have either motivation or both. 

People also tend to take things for granted or not be aware of past issues.  For example, the younger generation wouldn't remember Eilat as ever having had VAT, so the fact that someone had to work to achieve that exemption, or to later preserve it, wouldn't even enter their consciousness.  Most people do not consider violence in a mayor's office or a mayor/ex-mayor's perceived need for bodyguards a normative situation, so its absence during the office of other mayors is seen only as natural, not as an ‘accomplishment' or as an indication of their personal or professional integrity.  I.e. we tend to note the bad, but to take the good for granted as being the expected norm and not grant any ‘kudos' for it. 

One last thought is that of expectations:  how much in fact can a mayor, or City Hall, actually accomplish?  They do not act in a void.  They depend on other entities, governmental and otherwise, as well as the residents to do their part.  It doesn't help if a neighbourhood is restored and the residents vandalise it, or a garden is planted and people steal plants and uproot benches, or an anti-violence policy implemented in the schools while parents still make scenes in public and bash things at home when angry. 

On the other hand, the leaders have to be willing to think outside the box if the box isn't working.  If huge resources are being invested into something that is showing little result, boasting about the money sunk into this difficult issue isn't the answer - rethinking the manner in which you approach the problem and how you expend your resources is.  The nature of the candidate does make a difference - beyond the aspects such as integrity or other personal qualities the voter feels important, does the candidate have vision?  Experience?  Think creatively?  Know how to run a business?  Deal with people?  Have or readily make ‘connections' in government, business, and other potential allies?  Identify with the issues faced by the ‘common resident' who is usually well below his own economic niche?  Know or at least genuinely feel for what it's like to have elderly parents or grown children whose needs can't be met in Eilat?  Recognise that when most jobs pay minimum wage, in a city already over-burdened with ‘welfare cases' anyway, the whole local economy suffers because it loses their buying power?  ‘No man is an island', but Eilat is close to being.  Thus some of its issues are unique to it alone and must be addressed accordingly.  Let us hope that the best man for the job will be the one who wins the election.