As the Bucharest mayoral elections approach, the public space is filling with promises, rapid plans, and solutions presented as decisive. In this noise, the real difference between a solid electoral program and one built purely for campaigning becomes visible only when you evaluate it through objective criteria, not rhetoric. The city already operates at the limits of its infrastructure, budget, and administrative capacity, and a credible program can be distinguished from an illusory one only through coherence, measurability, and genuine feasibility—not through declared intentions.

1. Coherence between diagnosis and solutions
A credible candidate starts by presenting a realistic assessment of the city: the aging heating network, overloaded traffic, suspended PUZs, slow investments, and heavy bureaucracy. Solutions must follow logically from these issues. If the diagnostic stage is missing or embellished, the rest of the program has no foundation.

2. Measurability
Every promise must be framed in terms that can be verified: kilometers of network modernized, number of optimized intersections, surface area of green spaces recovered, clear deadlines. A program without indicators cannot be evaluated later and remains purely declarative.

3. Alignment with the budget and administrative capacity
Bucharest has a large budget, but it’s heavily fragmented and burdened with fixed obligations. A well-constructed program acknowledges the resources, budget flows, real costs, and the limits of the administrative apparatus. If a candidate promises massive transformations without explaining funding or implementation capacity, the program becomes meaningless.

4. Feasibility within a single mandate
A mandate lasts four years—insufficient for large-scale projects without prior groundwork. A credible program distinguishes between what can be started, what can be completed, and what remains in early design stages. “Miracle projects” framed as quick wins signal a lack of understanding of administrative processes.

5. Administrative continuity
Any relevant program incorporates ongoing projects. Ignoring them signals an intention to reset everything, which leads to delays and financial losses. When a candidate proposes a full restart of the city, the costs are unavoidable.

6. Transparency about risks and bottlenecks
Local administration operates through a complex interdependence: the city hall, councils, municipal companies, and central institutions. A well-built program acknowledges these limits and explains potential bottlenecks. Avoiding this topic signals superficial planning.

7. Data-driven, not perception-driven
Traffic, pollution, heating, urban development—all can be assessed using independent data. A program built on popular perceptions instead of objective indicators produces flawed solutions. A credible candidate bases proposals on measurements, not impressions.

8. Verifiability of past promises
If a candidate has held previous mandates, their past performance becomes a key evaluation criterion. This isn’t about political sanction but a simple check: demonstrated implementation capacity.

Conclusion
An electoral program becomes credible only when it combines a clear analysis of the city with measurable, fundable, and achievable proposals within a four-year mandate. Voters can filter out political noise by treating the program as a technical document: a set of objectives that must align with resources, time, and administrative capacity. When this alignment is missing, the promise remains rhetorical and fails to produce real change.

Also recommended Bucharest’s Mayors: From Communism to the Present Day

Also recommended Dem. I. Dobrescu, the mayor who transformed the Capital into the Little Paris, has a street named after him