(This is an archived extract from the book Patterns of Power: Edition 2)
Politicians should work for the benefit of the population. It is their job to do so, and one might expect that they would try to do it well – both for idealistic reasons and to advance their careers. Unfortunately, though, this is not always what happens:
· The contest for power in a democratic election shouldn't continue after a government has been formed. The job of all politicians is to serve the public. Although some would be expected to oppose the government, on the grounds of conflicting ideologies and priorities, they should negotiate constructively to reach agreement. The current stalemate in American politics has served the public badly.[1]
· Politicians should represent everyone in their constituencies, not just those who voted for them.
· They should respond to the needs and desires of those they serve – not those who paid the most in donations. The impact of money in politics is reviewed later in this chapter (6.4.5).
· Politicians should legislate for the benefit of the people, not purely for their own advantage.
· Politicians can be tempted to try to advance their careers by scoring political points without due regard to the public interest.[2]
The above examples all relate to democracies, but political infighting also happens in authoritarian systems.[3] The legitimacy of any government, authoritarian or democratic, depends on serving the people well.
© PatternsofPower.org, 2014
[1] On 5 October 2013, The Economist published an article entitled America's government shutdown – with the strapline “The Land of the Free is starting to look ungovernable. Enough is enough”; the article was available in April 2014 at http://www.economist.com/node/21587211.
On 8 November 2013, The Washington Post published an article entitled Federal government shutdown cost $2 billion in lost productivity, OMB report finds; this was available in April 2014 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-government-shutdown-cost-2-billion-in-lost-productivity-omb-report-says/2013/11/07/e883c3ec-47f2-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html.
[2] In a debate on 2 April 2014, on Britain's place in Europe, UKIP’s Nigel Farage demonstrated a desire to advance his own career by scoring political points and offering an unachievable fantasy, without due regard either for the truth or for the adverse consequences to Britain if it were to leave the EU – as described at https://www.patternsofpower.org/britain-europe-2/.
[3] On 15 March 2012, The New York Times published an article entitled In China, a Rare View of Infighting by Leaders, which was available in April 2014 at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/world/asia/infighting-by-chinese-leaders-on-display.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0#h.