Quote Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost View Post
Since you invited debate, IA, one would start with trying to define what you mean by "politicians".

In the direct democracy that others have decided you meant, it is arguable that every citizen must be a politician for government to work. In representative democracies, we devolve those duties to professionals. Even in anarchies, one might argue that there will be politicians, i.e. those who seek to use their skills, intelligence and charisma to influence others to an agenda. More learned colleagues may be able to point to an historical precedent for a society with no politicians, but I cannot think of one. There are several recent examples of political vacuums leading to power being concentrated into hands far more undesirable than corrupt politicians.

I think what we are missing in the current dissatisfaction is actually more widespread than politicians. My own view is that modern societies almost completely lack the concept of public service - not for self-aggrandisement, but a belief that serving the wider good is a fine thing. As societies, we no longer value this devotion as it has no monetary value and so we naturally get individuals standing for government whose motivation is to make as much money as possible in the shortest time. We are no longer interested in complex arguments on complex issues, preferring the immediate soundbite solution. Thus, we get governance based on this rather than nuanced politics where skilled negotiators develop the necessary compromises that all group decisions require.

It's a cliché, but we get the politicians we deserve. In choosing to embrace largely unfettered capitalism because it immediately benefits one generation in the basest manner, we have betrayed the very foundations of the democracies defended in the last world war. Doing away with politicians (or indeed simply moaning about them as if they were the problem) would merely shift the burden of responsibility back onto citizens who have washed their hands of societal obligations in favour of trivial dreams about fame and fortune.

I would agree with Graphic that a very good start would be to impose drastic limits on campaign funding and make political funding entirely from the public purse to ensure that it was ideas, not cash reserves, that tested candidates. I believe severe term limits are required for all political posts. One of my own solutions has long been the idea that parliament should be composed of citizens required (as with jury service) to serve a term. The government (executive) would be elected and professional, but parliament (or Congress) would be composed of citizens who, by and large, did not want to be there, and would thereby cut to the chase in holding the executive to account. They would need to be persuaded. Parliaments would also be called every couple of years rather than sitting virtually permanently, with little better to do than invent new and unneeded laws. I would also require that the professional politicians were paid the average salary of the country they governed, thus incentivised to improve the lot of the common man - and any other sources of income completely banned under pain of imprisonment. This would also encourage people who dedicated themselves to public service rather than a career that would make them rich.

To close, I am reminded of the story that demonstrates what used to pertain in the United Kingdom with regard to politicians. Clement Atlee, one of the most influential Prime Ministers of the UK, having lost the 1951 election, was seen the very next day standing unremarked in a bus queue dampened by the quiet drizzle. The day before, he held the reins of power to the British Empire, having implemented the post-war welfare state and irrevocably changed the lives of all subjects for the better. Today, he stood in the rain in a slightly dishevelled macintosh alongside other commuters. Contract that with Tony Blair sixty years later.

I submit, that contrast is why politicians are now reviled.
You've stated this several times. And every time I think that this view point was heavily influenced by the so called "greatest generation" of your father (pardon my assumptions about your age) and my grand father. That generation forged by a very harsh economic time, massive global war, and the nuclear fears that followed it. I believe that this generation was an aberration in it's views of civic participation and duty to society. And that this golden time and self less leaders who only took up office for the betterment of all never existed. Or if it did only sporadicly and briefly in very hard times for that society. That indeed all democratic societies the political class ALWAYS did it for either the challenge, the power, or the loot that the executive office or legislative seat offered. Or some combination of both. Really all that's changed is that it's become highly impossible to hide the dirty dealings for very long. That 100 years ago we'd never know how much of a crook Blair or Brown actually was cause people wouldn't take a better offer from the tabloids. To me the only serious degradation in our political discourse is personal loyalties.

I also very much disagree with your stance on how the government should function. I believe that forcing people to serve in a legislature is a recipe for disaster. People who don't want to be in a certain position often as not will not perform well. And indeed it would lead to even more massive corruption and vote buying that currently goes on. Why? You yourself provide the answer. A jury is an audience for a trial, and legal dramas and VERY popular with the general public. However the conducting of government business (as would be seen by a legislature) isn't. That said I do believe that we should try and force the liberal bribery and seat buying that special interest groups have these days. Forcing any who want to fund a campaign for office or seat into a giant pot that any and all can dip into is as decent an idea I could ever come up with. I also disagree with term limits in the extreme. I feel that a much easier to use impeachment/recall system would function just as a well. That is a social contract of being able to sit in that chair so long as you don't peeve enough people at one time.