Politicians don't join the governmet to work on personal projects. They directly impact government projects. In a setting where they are to be voted, it makes total sense for them to share their opinions on how government peojects should be run, or how government resources should be distributed. Otherwise if a politician decides to use their personal income to build a community project during campaigns, the voters tend to say, "where has he been all along, he is not helping us, rather he only wants us for our votes". Should every individual with the chance to lead invest recognizably in the community as they can run for a political position anytime? This is simply impractical. If a democracy is to chose a leader, let it know how he will use the existing government projects, what he has contributed to the existing government projects, perhaps in their previous position, then the democracy will know whom to expect results from.

Politicians are representative of the government and all work done in office is on government projects. Uganda is a good example of a democratic country with political campaigns spanning regions. At the same time, the country suffers from high levels of corruption, despite the anti corruption bill and multiple campaigns against the practice. All because there exists no real link in holding accountable politicians to the promises they made during the campaigns, or promises that were named upon their heads without any feasibility studies. On contrary to the motion, i would propose, anyone that runs for an office should be knowledgeable on the peojects run by the government, have their analysis of their implementations and present their own projections in line with promises and what they can add to existing projects. This would without a doubt provide a direct accountability scheme for politicians as they campaign for new positions or induct them into a democracy that rewards accountability and merits competence.