Politicians part 2

Don't you just love them, our heroic elected representatives?

In many countries, they are dynasties, in most countries nobody knows what they stand for (assuming they stand for anything), and in any case, considering that their prime objective is to stay elected, if there was a vision to start with, it soon fades under the pressure of opinion polls, the press (see my first post) or various pressure groups that have financial power or the potential for nuisance.

Professional politicians are not just inherently a curse. They also are organized in parties, which determine opinion lines, sometimes based on dogma (e.g. communist parties or the Christian right), sometimes on electoral tactics (i.e. getting as many votes for the next election), or purely on marketing strategies, all of which leaves even less room for individual vision.

So, not only does the individual politician have very little incentive to have a grand project, he's also subject to guidelines and "orders" from his party (and let's face it: without the backing of party, you are screwed, ask the many "independents" who lost quasi-systematically).

Where does that leave vision, and the will to represent the people that voted for him?

Basically nowhere.

Once in 2, 3 , 4 or 5 years, we are asked to express an opinion, via a vote for a person. The transparency of what this person stands for (again, assuming he stands for anything) is usually non-existent, unclear or fake. Moreover, the numbers of voters involved mean that any single individual vote really makes no difference: One in 130 million (USA), one in 25 or 30 million (many European countries)?

The day after election day, our heroic politicians (those who were voted in or renewed in their "mandate") congratulate each other, and basically do whatever they please, notwithstanding promises made. Image management becomes again the prime issue, not issue management, because the next election looms.

The problem with all that is quite simple: Modern societies require VERY careful management. How to keep the social group coherent? How to create a common vision? How to change course when the environment requires it? And most importantly, how to make the difficult decisions that may be required at times, explain them and get on with it.

Our current system really does not cater for this. Democracy, professional politicians, the party system, lobbies, etc... does not allow for fundamental, hard, decisions to be made. It does however favor the creation of a new class (elite?): Politicians. We, the voters are taken to the cleaners.

The democratic system itself (like every political system ever invented by mankind) does not allow evolution to adapt to a new environment. Our large democracies basically still function like the old Greek one, except for the fact that anyone can vote, whether contributing to the group or not (and I'm not too sure that's a positive evolution). When will we have a referendum asking the 40, 50 or 60% of people that rarely or never vote why they don't vote? Who would have an incentive to in initiate that? My bet is it will never happen. Yet I can't believe there are so many fishermen in so many democracies, who just happen to feel the urge to go fishing on election day.

Could it be that they have noticed it's all a sham?

Again more than 5 minutes.... I need to slice thinner. :)

One more post on this subject, leading to questions about the democratic system...

Comments welcome.