In several places in the world are elections these days. When writing this, Brazilians recently have chosen their president, and inhabitants of the USA (those eligible to vote that is) can do their democratic duty soon. It is this time of year that the quote of Sir Winston Churchill comes to mind: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried”. Another one of his statements: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”.
Especially the last one appeals to me. Government elections tend to be a once in a four or five year event especially if the result lasts the full term. In other fields, opinion polls have a much higher frequency. In commercial television (or any marketing driven field), the preference of viewers is measured at a daily basis and see what that does to the quality of what is on the screen every night. If a parallel with politics could be drawn, we should have elections even more apart then we have now.
But the parallel is wrong: politics is not about what people want, not even in a democracy. That statement may need some explanation but in my mind it is very simple: democracy is about politicians who have a view on society, the economy and world order. Based on those views, they formulate a program and make plans to be achieved over the next election period and beyond. Voters should decide to vote for a politician based on two things:
- beforehand: does this politician have a view that is consistent with my own ideas;
- afterward: has this politician acted according to his ideas and was (s)he successful in realizing his/her vision?
The more individuals can express their personal opinion and formulate their self interest to the ones close to (political) power, the more disappointed they will be when the government does not act on it immediately. Going in this direction has one certain result: the shift to the opposing parties will be even bigger next time.
Elections nowadays turn into a personality contest, which politician looks most like the understanding, listening, parent-like figure and will (s)he continuously make the effort to hear my individual opinion when decisions have to be made? It is this kind of thinking that is behind the daily opinion polls about what could have been if today were elections. But 999 out of a 1000 days there are no elections today and with a good reason: politics can be viewed on commercial television but is in itself something completely different and should therefore be evaluated on different time scales.
The same way a patient does not tell his doctor how to cure him or the plumber how to fix his sink, a voter should not tell a politician how to act or what to do. But the same way a patient wants his doctor to explain the surgery to him, a voter should demand from a politician to tell what his/her plans are and how (s)he is going to achieve the intended results. But after that it is a delegated authority with an ‘interval of trust’ of four or five years until the next elections. Communications in politics is (and therefore should be) mostly one way: politicians explaining their views, plans and actions. The answer from the electorate is very important and can only be effective when used with discretion: a once every view year well contemplated vote based on the above evaluation criteria.
Only with this common understanding about what politics is, do politicians have a chance to show the leadership that is required to solve the issues of our time.
ERegoS
No comments:
Post a Comment