This piece is an extension of the earlier article on party politics circumscribing the lay persons’ freedom to choose the best candidate to serve the state or the country or at the local level as their representative. The electors, the article said, are presented with the Hobson’s choice – take what the parties offer or just don’t bother; politics will go on anyway. If it’s a bouquet of bad candidates offered by all major parties, then the voter has to grin and bear. He cannot do much to change anything. This situation calls for a larger debate on the quality of people joining politics and whether it is advisable or necessary to filter out the mediocre lot.
Let’s begin with a question: Do we need politicians? Considering that the word ‘politician’ has gathered an overwhelming negative connotation over time, and in everyday discourse it is often synonymous with terms such as scheming, amoral, manipulative, dishonest, it is time we judged them from the utility for the society they bring to the table. Doctors, engineers, bureaucrats, teachers, scientists etc have well-defined roles. They have expertise in specific areas and their service is necessary for the general wellbeing of the people and the country, not so the case of politicians. When we try to place them somewhere in the specialist vs generalist divide, they fit nowhere. They are, particularly those at the lower and middle levels, not specialists in any subject, neither they possess the range of knowledge, if not depth, a generalist needs to have.
According to dictionary definition, a politician is a person experienced in the art or science of government, especially one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government. Or he is simply someone engaged in party politics as a profession. Experience, as mentioned in the first instance, can be vague in its meaning. It doesn’t translate into specific skills. We may have some exceptionally gifted persons in politics, good at governance and devising policies, but this is not the case with a vast majority of politicians. They simply lack the education, training or intellectual capacity to conduct the business of government. The second definition is more appropriate in their cases. They serve a party. In that case, their utility for the society in general is highly restricted.
Yet they occupy the positions where critical decisions that impact us deeply are made. Something is seriously flawed here. The position of a politician is one of great responsibility. Obviously, it requires people who are competent to handle the responsibility. An engineer is trained to do his job efficiently, same goes for a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher. But no such training is deemed consequential for someone who wants to be a career politician. Why is that?
Gone are the days when idealistic youngsters would join politics driven by the motive to serve people and work for their betterment. This lot didn’t think much about the lure of perks that political power brought. They preferred to be among people, raising their issues, rather than move in power circles. Idealism propelled their political actions. Now we have a breed of politicians who love the perks that power begets. While they keep asserting that they are here to serve people, it’s obvious they prefer to make the relationship with the electors more or less transactional and distant. Many are paradropped by parties during elections and may not even be aware of the nature of their constituencies. Think of filmstars or sportspersons contesting on party tickets, you get the picture accurately.
The trend has caused a disconnect between people and their representatives. It has reduced the voting process to a formality, a ritual without substance or meaning. It also means that democracy has lost its essence. The situation calls for quick corrective action. It must begin with clarity about what a politician is supposed to do. Without it we are in no position to expect utility from them. When utility is not defined, we cannot demand accountability.
How do we fix this problem? There’s no easy way out. But to begin with, people keen on joining politics and making a career out of it must be made to pass an aptitude test at the entry level. Beyond that they should be adequately trained at different stages to improve competence in specific areas of governance. An aptitude test can filter out those who are non-serious about choosing politics as a career. Also, there should be incentives for good people to join politics. Well, on paper the idea looks nice; the real challenge is in making the political class agree on it.
Comments are closed.