Defining the Honest Politician
Source
Politicians and politics...
Prostitutes and brothels...
Some consider the parallel valid.
Many consider politics to be dirty...
...and in fairness, politics as we know it 'is' dirty.
Source
But need politics be dirty?
We live in an age where asking this question might have peoples' eyes glaze over as their minds write oneself off as being naive. After all - how can one possibly conceive of a future where politics is not dirty without extracting any effort at realism in the process?
And yet, just because something has always been marred in scandals, deception and empty promises - this need not mean that it is beyond the realm of possibility for a prevailing instance of redemption to arise - a cleaning of the slate.
In the context of politics one could blame either the system or the actors for the current state of affairs - and in fairness I would say that both should carry their own portion of blame.
Source
I shall be focusing upon the individual.
There is a reason that I mention 'individual' rather than 'politician'.
Politicians tend to be individuals while some individuals are politicians.
Individuals repeatedly prove over history that they are not necessarily limited to their circumstances. Even during times of scarcity or war one always finds individuals who behave above and beyond the level of survivalism-inducing circumstances surrounding them. Noble spirits who shine a light in an otherwise dark expanse.
Source
What Does This Have to do With Politics?
As individuals can exist above and beyond the circumstances of adverse situations - so too can individual politicians choose to exist above and beyond the political climate.
Many do not... but that can change. One individual at a time.
So... how can an individual politician actually go about this?
How does one simply become 'less dirty'?
Source
Well - there are some some more obvious ways.
Don't sell out to those who seek to buy one off.
Don't yield to the threats of third parties.
Don't promise what you cannot deliver.
Don't get economical with the truth.
These sound simple in principle.
Easier said than done, as always.
However there is one more thing...
Say what one wants, not what others want to hear.
Source
Politicians Stating What They Truly Want.
To win at the game of politics as we know it, it is mandatory for a politician to pander to public opinion.
This means that when the people get to vote for a politician, they often only have that person's words and the trending stories surrounding him or her to go on upon which to make their decision. They won't know what they are really going to get until they are saddled with that person for the next few years.
The worst part is that politicians aren't even necessarily inclined to stick to their election promises - which results in suspiciously convenient U-turns.
Source
However...
What if - in the line-up of fake populist politicians that have been the norm, one were also to find individuals thrown into the mix that do quite the opposite?
Such a person may appear less fake - they are not necessarily even appropriate in expressing their views - which same views themselves may sometimes be downright unpopular.
But seeming inapproporiate views or outbursts are not exclusively the domain of the genuine. The most famous contemporary example of a contentious individual getting into power... would be Donald Trump. Its fair to say that people have very mixed feelings about that person - and how he is currently doing in his role - and whether he is genuine or not...
In any case how Trump performs in his role will affect the allure of any other individuals of similarly off-beat characteristincs in future... and this may have been a calculated gamble by those same shadowy interests mentioned earlier - but I digress.
Source
The point that I am trying to convey here is that it would be interesting if aspiring politicians were to stop telling people what they want to hear - and instead tell the public what that individual politician does or does not 'believe'.
Imagine an aspiring politician telling you that a vote for him or her means a vote for:
- Gun rights
- Military intervention abroad
- Social Healthcare
If these three things are what you yourself happen to believe in - then this politician might be a good choice for your vote.
That is the theory - at least.
Source
I am sure that there will be some interesting opinions to hear on this matter so do let me get to hear of them down in the comments down below. :c)
Also, if you found this post interesting and would like to share this with your followers and friends then a resteem is always appreciated.
Sincerely,
Previous Post: Nostalgic Game Design Focus - Overlander?
Focusing in the individuals is great, and I also believe that politics isn't shady or dirty, it's the actual politicans that make It that way. I buy your idea of an honest politician, but sadly I believe that a being like that wouldn't have popular support, they should still exist, and work their way up to the popular opinion, but It'll take hard work.
Thank you kindly, jazfwolf, both for your upvote as well as your comment. :c)
Oh... politics as we know it is sadly shady or dirty - but its more because its 'something' that isn't properly cared for. Think of any attractive person on screen (who doesn't happen to be a survival expert), and drop him or her off in the middle of a vast wilderness. Ensure that s/he lives but little else - and return in 3-6 months. They would look very different. ;c)
The same is true of politics. If picked up from the mud and cleaned off then it'll look a lot less ugly than that which we know today. Unfortunately its a very difficult process.
And yes - one reason that is happens to be because they wouldn't have 'popular support' - which itself can be hacked.
Thanks again for participating ^_^
mhhh, I think a lot of your analysis is prety spot on, but I would argue that representative democracy is "designed to fail". Democratic representation is just a tool to have a monarchical state, while you can say the people rule the state (which is a lie).
Demockerycy (there is no true active democracy that I am aware of) is indeed designed to be exploitable such as to bring about an effective monarchical (or rather oligarchical) situation.
Raising awareness can be a bit of a challenge - as doing so in doses too great can often lose a person's attention (we can only take in so much change in perspective before we begin to resist such).
Thanks for your up-vote and your comment @thatgermandude. :c)
Most of Europe's Monarchies have been quite oligarchic, there had been blood ties between the German and British Monarchs which also lead to a lot of tension and was partly a reason why WW1 happened.
That article is quite a nice breakdown of why I so heavily distrust the Representive Democracy System. Since Germany has a lot of small and uprising parties in the last years, you can see how corruption and infiltratin of political movements happens it is quite sad.
The Linke (trans, "the Left") has been an anti-EU party at the beginning and the AfD as well. Both exchanged their reasonable policies for virtue signaling left wing (50% women quotas) and right wing (we must ban Islam) bullshit. So sad.
*Demockerycy is a nice term, I think I will borrow that ^^. Maybe make I will make it Demockeracy to make it easier on the eyes.
Sorry @thatgermandude.
It appears that I managed to miss this reply entirely :c)
You may peruse of the concept of demockerycy (and rename it accordingly) as you please. I find it annoys those who think that we have an honest political system - blind to the interests at play.