Posts Tagged ‘A Few Good Politicians’
Who is responsible for a working democratic system?
It is rare that I read posts reflecting on democratic systems. I slightly edited this post before commenting.
“The question of responsibility in democratic system is absolutely core. It influences my behaviour on a daily basis and is a source of much frustration. I am going to examine the relationship between the public, the media, politicians and its effects on the quality of democracy.
The problem with democracy, friends, is that it belongs to us all. We are all of us responsible for keeping it healthy.
I very strongly believe that a politically active electoral is a vital part for the functioning of democracy. By politically active I don’t just mean an electorate who votes, though in this country higher turnouts would be a good start!
I define a politically active electorate who engages with the issues of the day.
People who critically assess the information that comes their way and forms good in-depth quality opinions.
People who look for truth and reason, people who engage with their local communities.
People who don’t just moan about bad things, but try to be part of a solution.
I believe that a politically active electorate, in their search for good quality information to fuel their well-formed opinions, must surely lead to a good quality media.
The demand for real news must be met and the overall quality of reporting improve. The process may be slow, but it would happen.
This is in contrast to the current situation whereby so many seek news as entertainment: news to be angry or outraged at, news to shake their head about, news to say “have you heard..” and have a gossip about. News about things which make them annoyed but about which they ask no questions and conduct no basic analysis of. Certainly not news which makes them get up and make a change.
It is my view that the demand for news as entertainment and the subsequent dumbing down of almost all media outlets directly contributes to the situation that so many people are upset about:
Lying, cheating, fiddling, untrustworthy politicians… are pretty common curses.
Is it really a surprise that when we demand so little from our press, in turn our press demands so little from our politicians?
Instead of focusing on the big issues, we get media orchestrated scandals.
Instead of in-depth debates of contributing factors we get a celebrity culture.
Instead of the real issues of the day we get diversions. And we lap it up.
A good quality media is a vital part of maintaining accountability of politicians. To get a good quality media we have to demand it. We have to gravitate to those channels and publications which provide good quality reporting and move away from those that do not.
Of course, a politically active electorate could lead to all kinds of other wonderful things: more community based solutions, more accountability on the election trail, a higher voter turnout, more debate with more sensible outcomes.
The view of an idealist perhaps, but I don’t think it is particularly crazy to suggest people start taking responsibility for assessing the information that they are fed with. Look for truth”. End of quote
I like the idea of a correlation that the less we demand from our press for quality news on serious matters (instead of celebrity culture and scandals, news as entertainment, gossips…), the less the press will make demands on politicians.
If the citizens are happy and contended with their press then why the press is to take on their responsibilities of tackling serious issues without the support of the citizens to back them up with their concerns?
Media is dependent on the feedback of their audience that generate ads from companies, which usually support the power-to-be, and thus, it is the engagement of communities in rallying the people behind their common interests that can make a difference.
What is generally needed is a fair and equitable election laws that permit the entire population to participate in the political debate and allow citizens to dare be candidate against all odds.
Note: You may read my post https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/a-few-good-politicians/
We all agree that doing politics is a serious profession. Not anyone is capable of assuming his mandate to serving the community: a voted in political candidate is to be at the beck of his community 24 hours a day and fielding all kinds of requests; he has no reliable methods to controling his daily activities and set aside relaxation periods.
And yet, candidates to “serving the public” are not taught and trained in schools like all the other professions. Actually, most of the students graduating from high schools and universities have acquired a terrible bad connotation for the term “politics” or “doing politics”.
You have candidates who think that because they have an academic position, an administrative job with a private company, or just an earning job that they have the right to run for political positions, regardless of the specific job qualifications of being people-oriented and frequently communicating with voters, and listening intently and seriously to voters requests and demands.
If candidates fail to prove that they are people-oriented before election, how do you expect him to follow up on the daily and countless people’s problems?
People enroll in the field of “political science” thinking that this field will train them for the political arena; wrong! The field of political science does not train people in the social and psychological behavior of people, which are the right tools for doing politics.
Acquiring sketchy understanding of the macro politics by lumping whole nations as a single entity or whole regions as potential enemies is not the correct way for training politicians to thinking rationally and for the good of the people in the long term.
There are so many candidates running for political seats (municipality, parliament…) who actually pray not to succeed in their campaigns. They know, not just theoretically, of their limitations but also in their gut feeling, that they are not ready for serving the community 24 hours a day, day in day out. Those candidates have learned to establishing a life-style that is mostly peaceful, secluded, reclusive, and not immersed in frequent communication with people; they are terribly bored with discussions, or reading reports, or listening to constant recriminations and requests. They want volunteer assistants to aids them to communicating with people because their “lazy” life-style is not compatible with actual political frenetic demands.
Yes, they pray to fail but they cannot help it accepting nominations to run: It is so nice to playing the “pasha” for a short period; playing the game of the short-lived leader; smiling in profusion, but having nothing to say or any detailed program to follow up with zeal.
Those faked “politicians”, actually ruin campaigns by their lethargy for not activily running seriously. As voters, we like to claim that this candidate has a good program but we always fail to investigate if he is up to the demands of the task serving the community by following up on requests for the long haul. It is character and inclination for “doing politics” that count most: Programs can be altered and improved but how can you change individual character and behaviors?
For example, if you know a candidate who is constantly pessimistic and skeptical about making a dent in any kind of reforms; that all is already lost for any change, would you vote for such a candidate?
If this candidate is never sober anytime of the day, would you vote for this candidate? And yet, as election comes, hop, he is a candidate and on top of the list. He always fails and his list of candidates too!
Problems with our politicians stem from three factors; first, most of the politicians inherit their jobs, one way or another; they realize soon that they are not up to the requirements and don’t want the hassle; and thus, they delegate their responsibilities to people who were not elected in the first place.
Second, politicians don’t work for the long term success because they don’t find the time to read, reflect, and grow their inner power.
Third, they are not people-oriented. Among the very few politicians who satisfy the two criteria of proven records of capable providers and verbal intelligence, only those who realize the need to strengthen their inner power through reading and reflection and actually taking short “sabbaticals”, away from the media have the potentials to become leaders of people.
In “Hiroshima my love”, Marguerite Dora says: “Human political intelligence is a hundred folds lower than scientific intelligence.” On the face of it, many would be nodding their heads in consent. We have got to analyze political intelligence from a different perspective to appreciate that the previous statement is not correct.
When we deal with human behaviors that are first, in the hundreds of varieties and ever changing with time and conditions and second, the inability of human cognitive powers to assimilate the different interactions of even four factors, or variables at the same time and third, juggling these interactions in real time and under pressure, we can grasp the far complex intelligence requirements of doing and thinking politics.
Maybe Marguerite Dora meant that the social state of affairs of mankind is not improving due to lack of intelligent political actions and appropriate decision making in institutions. I say, encourage political institutions to get people engaged and freely expressing their opinions on reforms and you may judge on the superior mankind political intelligence.
Democracy, without prior selection of politicians based on cognitive and emotional testing for mental capabilities, is tantamount to more of the same repeated errors and mistakes for the public good. Political intelligence would then be vastly appreciated to its own merit when candidates satisfy cognitive and emotional criteria before submitting their applications to public political posts.
The vote of the people would make much more sense when people are initiated and exposed to the complexities of serving the people and extending a higher value for the term “doing politics”.
The necessary condition, though not sufficient, for a politician is to have demonstrated that he loves to communicate with people, and to field requests around the day as the main job of public server: He learns to be pragmatic because he is listening to the demands of the people.
A Few Good Politicians
Posted by: adonis49 on: February 6, 2009
A Few Good Politicians (February 6, 2009)
Our problems with politicians stem from three factors:
First, most of the politicians inherit their jobs, one way or another. They realize soon that they are not up to the requirements of the arduous job, and don’t want the hassle; and thus, they delegate their responsibilities to people who were not elected in the first place.
Second, politicians don’t work for the long-term success because they “Don’t find the time to read, reflect, and grow their inner power“.
Third, most politicians didn’t walk the streets, and reluctantly communicate with potential voters: they are not people oriented, which should be the main job description for a politician.
Among the very few politicians who satisfy the 4 criteria of proven records of people oriented, capable providers, continuing education, and mastery of verbal intelligence, only those who realize the need to strengthen their inner power through reading and reflection, and actually taking short “sabbatical” away from the media have the potentials to become leaders of people.
We all want to be “providers”, the Patriarch, or the Matriarch.
Only the minority of us can be providers and are willing to take on this responsibility and dedicate their time and nerves for that constantly demanding job.
Among this minority we have people with good “verbal intelligence” or orators who can be candidates for political career.
In “Hiroshima my love” Marguerite Dora says:
“Human political intelligence is a hundred folds lower than scientific intelligence”
On the face of it, many would be nodding their heads in consent. We have got to analyze political intelligence from a different perspective to appreciate that the previous statement is not correct.
When we deal with human behaviors that are extremely complex because:
First, characters are in the hundreds of varieties and ever-changing with time and conditions Second, the inability of human cognitive powers to assimilate the different interactions of even 4 factors or variables at the same time and t
Third, juggling these interactions in real-time and under pressure then, we can grasp the far complex intelligence requirements of doing and thinking politics.
Democracy, without prior selection of politicians based on cognitive and emotional testing for mental capabilities, is tantamount to more of the same repeated errors and mistakes for the public good.
Political intelligence would be vastly appreciated to its own merit when candidates satisfy cognitive and emotional criteria before submitting their applications to public political posts.
We all agree that doing politics is a serious profession.
And yet, candidate to “serving the public” are not taught and trained in schools like all the other professions.
Actually, most of the students in high schools and in universities, graduate with a terrible bad connotation for the term “politics”.
People enroll in political science thinking that this field will train them for the political arena; wrong!
The field of political science does not train people in the social and psychological behavior of people, which are the right tools for doing politics.
Acquiring sketchy understanding of the macro politics by lumping whole nations as a single entity or entire regions as potential enemies is not the correct way for training politicians to thinking rationally and for the good of the people in the long-term.
The vote of the people would make much more sense when people are initiated and exposed to the complexities of serving the people and offering a higher value for the term “doing politics”.
A professional politician is necessarily pragmatic because he works toward consensus as he communicates extensively with citizens and listen carefully and seriously to their demands.
Adonis Diaries 