What a coincidence. Right before reading our post, I was thinking about the issue of 'qualifications' for our elected political leaders, and how some would wonder, why don't we have them?
We have skills required for doctors, we have merit-based promotiorns somewhat in the military, we haverequirements for all kinds of powerful positions. But not the people on top who set the policies.
The one reason, as far as I'm concerned, is the theoretical idea of democracy - the risk that any test could be turned into a corrupt restriction on the people's power to elect who they want.
As well of course as the difficulty in identifying what specific things you would test for a politician - that's pretty unclear too.
But the thing is, that theoretical notion is lost when the election process is horribly corrupted by another problem, the influence of money and power by the few at the top.
The civiilian leadership who get to order the policies they want to be followed by millions of government employees who have 'earned' their position is empower by the notion the leadership is reflecting 'the will of the people', that as soon as you restrict the leadership's power relative to the organization under them you are restricting the people's power to reign in that same organization. That as soon as the generals can tell the President 'no', they can tell the American people 'no', too. But the terrible election corruption makes a mockery of that notion as the government has to follow the corrupted leadership serving big business.
The tension between bad leaders and able organizations under them can lead people to support less power for the politicians - but to unwittingly throw away the power of the vote in doing that.
This is why we need to clean up our democracy - the money, of course, but also the culture; today, politicians are incented to treat voters like people to 'market to', not as the nation's owners.
Or as I've quoted many times, "Politicians have to LOOK good to voters, and DO good for donors".
Nope very simple. Actually have this thought out for requirements to be a politician.
A) Degree from a school in a degree plan the relation to politics such as Political science, business, accounting, law, or a plan that has skills that politicians use. Musical Appreciation degrees are not allowed
B) A higher degree for a higher office. Bachelor for state level, and Masters for Federal.
C) Minimum debt. This is a rule enforced for other federal jobs, but not politicians. Debt gives way to blackmailing and bribing.
D) Ethical and moral classes must have been taken as part of their degree plan.
E) No prior criminal felony offense.
These are a minimum I would have on top of what we already have before anyone can be even voted upon for public office. On top of that, these are what I would change to the current political arena.
1) Extend terms. Current terms for most public offices are 2 years. This basically means by the time someone gets elected, they don't have nearly enough time to start to learn and do their job before they have to think about running a campaign to be re-elected. 4 or 6 years should be the term length... but with the following stipulations.
2) Impose a maximum amount of terms on any office. 2 terms works for the president so do the same for all public offices. Either someone moves up, or they move out. No going back down.
3) Performance and peer reports. Every other government, and most private jobs have performance evaluations. Why should elected officials not? Just because they were voted into a job doesn't mean it is not still a job. Make the evaluation a two or even three part system where applicable. A peer review evaluation, a "boss" review, and a public review. Fail all 3 and they are out. Once out of office from an evaluation point of view, they can't come back in.
4) Change how campaigning is done. Institute a time frame that campaigning can be allowed before an election. In the UK, there is a certain time frame politicians can campaign during.
5) Remove individual campaign funds. No donations to a single person. Right now campaigns for US politicians consist of two parts. Fund raising, and spreading their "message" to the public to garner popularity. Remove the fund raising aspect. All campaign funds are "assigned" to potential politicians and are monitored. Anything unused is returned. Donations all go to the same pool and are equally distributed.
6) No personal income allowed to be spent on campaigning. Being very rich shouldn't be a factor in someone getting elected or not.
All the changed I have in mind basically do a few things. One is to make sure politicians that are elected have the basic skills and tools needed to actually do a good job. Also, to make sure they have the reasonable to to focus and do a proper job. Give them incentive to do a good job. Remove legal "bribes" from the system. Allow people to vote for politicians based on the politician, not if they do a book signing or other superfluous crap.
Of course this will never ever pass. It would oust to many corrupt politicians in power. It would bring about a fair and equal change for all. It could possibly "work" and no politician currently in office wants that
Facebook
Twitter