Political commitment means actually putting your neck on the line for what you believe in, rather than dithering about wondering if the electorate (or media) will crucify you for your convictions (there’s an interesting mixed metaphor). There’s no point in trying to save your bacon. This is why people don’t trust politicians - the ones we have now just won’t do this. This is also why such politicians who would do it don’t exist - because the political parties that select candidates don’t trust exactly the type of politician that the people would!
There are exceptions. We call them independents.
Every so often, such a politician will pull a stunt to draw attention to their cause, but without the backing of a large political party, the media is unlikely to get too interested *unless* there’s an interesting element to the story. If the media don’t cover the story, then people won’t hear about it. Let’s face it, an independent is not in any position to churn out reams of propaganda for the masses. They rely on their convictions to generate the stories & to show their electorate just how independent in thought & deed they are.
Strangely, if you try to build a party around an independent thinker, then you are destined for failure - eventually. One or two elections down the track, that maverick streak that people loved in one person becomes a party line that “the establishment” (where did they come from??) insists is followed. This, of course, both demeans the initiator, & pushes away the public following that loved the maverickness. In Australia, in particular, this has happened in several instances - Democrats & One Nation.
True independence of political party politics means being able to commit to what you, the person elected, believe in. It would be great if this could also mean having the support of an infrastructure that generated interest in your views, helped to disseminate the truth (as opposed the hype), & took away some of the mundaneity of the electoral process, but that would require a kind of altruism usually lacking in those involved in politics across most countries.
As long as politics equates to “power” in one way or another, then some will be political for the sake of being in or near that power. Let’s face it, otherwise there’s nothing “in it” for them. They want their team to win - which is an interesting way of thinking about it in itself, that there is only one winner, & therefore several losers. I don’t want to hark back to the “up to half of the voters don’t like their representative” discussion, but if there were more winners, then there would have to be fewer losers (representatives & voters).
*I just thought of a great way to elect a government, but I’ll have to wait until later, otherwise I’ll muddy this blog entry.*
I want my government representative to commit - to both make promises that are followed through, & show a history of doing so. I want a politician who has no fear, but has some consistency that I can trust over the period of entrenchment. If they showed that mettle, then they’re more likely to be re-elected than someone of whom I know nothing more than that they pay their dues to a particular political party that had once espoused views so diametrically opposed to another politcal party that they had to be at constant war with them.
I don’t want a battlefield for government. That makes no sense. There’s no war to win.There is no being on the side of right (or might).
I want debate. I want policies. I want decisions. I want progress. But most of all, I want my representative to show some political commitment.
In exchange, I promise to commit my vote to them next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment