You do not have to look hard to find the wisdom in Winston Churchill’s definition of democracy as the worst form of government, except for the rest. In our country, one of the great pointers to what is troubling about our democracy is the kind of people who dominate it. Many political actors are hustlers and have no obvious other sources of livelihood than the rents they scavenge off being politically active, as well as the scams they perpetrate against the commonwealth, which are clearly debilitating of the process of delivering quality public service that advance the common good and improve the quality of life of citizens. All these add to the image of politics and politicians as something unwholesome, causing many capable people to flee the public space. The result is that policy choice is significantly latrongenic, that is to say very of many times, the policy choices we make do more damage to the patient, than the disease we are trying to cure. This is understandable, as many, who dominate the arena of policy making, have neither the training, leadership capacity, nor the discipline to apply themselves responsibly to solving society’s problems. As a person usually cannot give what they do not have, the lacuna left by poor capacity is quickly filled by a process of goal displacement, as aptly described in the book, Complex Organizations, by Charles Perrow, resulting in an obsession with corrupt enrichment of self at the expense of public purpose. Goal displacement can be the bane of the bureaucratic order. In typical analysis, this is seen as greed and a manifestation of narcissism of the bureaucratic age, whereas the problem is a feeling of a void, created by lack of capacity and purpose, with other goals more personal than organisational or public, filling the void. This underlies the problem of local governments with “tout” councilors. A general recourse in truly to solve this problem is to call for radical change in citizenship conduct such that the better prepared for public life instead of fleeing the public space not to be contaminated by the violence, blackmail and the mischievous scandalising of those who enter by those who live off politics and often have nothing to lose by way of pedigree and reputation but everything to gain by the power, and material benefit that come from political position. So we urge forward quality people, who are able, to enter political life. But what do they encounter? Their businesses are quickly stigmatised. They cannot access financial instruments because they are tagged politically exposed persons (PEP). With the PEP stigma, they are likely to suffer in economic life and be tempted, like the professional politicians who live off the system, to think of ways of surviving while serving sacrificially, for the good of all. I know a few good men who have tried politics, motivated by the noble ideal of service,got so much poorer, without being appreciated for the sacrifice they made, that they swore never again to approach the arena of political life. Which capable and competent professional would really want so seemingly a tainted tag as politically exposed person? It’s easier for such people to cynically refer to the arena as territory of “Dem all crazy” and retreat into striving to construct his comfort zone, a bubbled based on an economistic sense of self love. The truth, in the end, is that like all bubbles, it is not sustainable. Worse still, all of society is poorer for that orientation. So how do we install a regime in which the professional politician is pushed back, and the citizen politician, equipped in the Aristotlean philosopher King mode steps forward, burdened by the need to advance shared prosperity and social harmony, to offer light. My alarm on this subject has been heightened by the amazing number of people with and without capacity, who in my recent experience, I found desperate to be appointed into positions of any kind in government. For the first time, I came to a full understanding of why we have bloated government. In my thinking, one of the ways to tackle this choking of the system, with carrying unproductive load, is to create more centres of prestige in society and reduce the material attraction of political life. Where the businessman who makes a success of enterprise, a bureaucrat who builds a reputation for attaining execution premium, and the soldiers who reaches to the top with distinction is celebrated and recognised as much as the political success, there will be a lower incentive for crowding out the arena of politics for those with the passion to serve. When a very strict culture of accountability, compensation systems different from what the National Assembly has managed to institute, are put in place, to ensure that political pay comes into line with the civil service compensation and requires sacrifice on the part of those in government, people have to learn to sneer at politicians with no evidence of job creating, wealth creation enterprise, behind him or her. At the same time, we should learn to celebrate the simple life in public life.The status conferral function of the media needs to be developed to raise the profile to politicians who move around without a coterie of aides and security people and who live very simple lives , do society a world of good. At the same time, the abusive interpretation of the idea of PEP should be reworked so that the entrepreneurially oriented who have capacity to advance the common good in public life with transparent systems to ensure accountability, and the blockage of possibilities of abuse of public position for self-interest, should not be disadvantaged by what the PEP idea insinuates. With this in mind, we can consciously look at the paradoxes of the democratic culture in practice and evolution so that society profits from democracy as desired.
No comments:
Post a Comment