There’s been a question rolling around in my head for the past few weeks about whether our politicians should be our leaders or our avatars. The situation with Paul Martin as PM is what started me thinking about this. As a Catholic, he was instructed by the pope and the cardinals of Canada to implement Catholic teachings, particularly regarding homosexuality, but the press demanded that he put the will of the people above any obligations he may have as a Catholic.
My point is not about whether the pope has any say in the matter or beliefs on homosexuality (it’s just the example that got me thinking), but rather beliefs on the duty of elected officials. Many decades ago JFK said he was the president first and a Catholic second, which was apparently viewed as a good thing. It seems that the argument made by the press is that a politician’s sole job is to parrot whatever the electorate wants. The PM is merely an avatar. But if this is the case then the PM’s personal views, background, or values are irrelevant. If one thinks that an ex-convict will implement popular policy then elect him or her, the person’s past actions are meaningless.
While this point of view may be very democratic, I don’t believe that it necessarily leads to the best course of action. For example, in at least one state in the U.S. a law was passed forbidding tax hikes without the approval of a referendum (my Dad is the source for this). The result is that their school systems fell into utter disarray; people simply failed to grasp what’s good for them and their politicians blindly followed whatever would get votes. You may see this as a silly example, but consider the situation with environmental regulations, renewable energy, or support for the third world. The majority of the population either couldn’t be bothered, or, more commonly, don’t want to spend any money or see their standard of living reduced. Thus, these issues remain because the avatars pouring over their poll numbers haven’t received the go ahead.
If a man is capable of putting aside his ethical or logical judgments and beliefs then what else is he capable of doing? Lying perhaps? Giving the people what he thinks they want to hear? In my opinion anyone who can do this and sleep well at night has no personal integrity whatsoever. Contrary to the belief of many individuals I’ve spoken to, there is no off-switch for religious or moral beliefs and there certainly shouldn’t be one for logically-reasoned beliefs either.
Perhaps it’s just my youthful naïveté and idealism, but I’ve always believed that our politicians should be our leaders, those among us who best exemplify our values and ideals. We don’t elect them to blindly parrot our desires, but rather to seek out innovative ways to push civilization forward. A leader is always on the lookout for problems and seeks solutions before they become so bad the masses are whining about them. A leader inspires by sharing her personal beliefs, using rhetoric (in the good sense of the word) to gather others around her ideas by showing the people why and how they work.
Yeah, I really need to get some kind of Friday night activity.
2 Comments:
I guess it depends how people elect them. In a representative democracy, one is supposed to elect politicians who use their best judgment on your behalf, however, this can be misleading... if Paul Martin was openly catholic, and very clear that he would enforce homophobic laws, then fair enough.
I get what you mean though, I kind of think it is up to politicians to try and persuade the electorate of their beliefs when the electorate does not agree with them. If they do not succeed however, they should back off.
I guess the thing for me is that I really believe that if you think something is right (after having consulted, thought, reasoned, prayed, etc.), then you are obligated to do everything reasonably (and morally) in your power to enact your ideal. I think this applies regardless of whether you are PM or a common Joe.
Let me add a few caveats:
I also believe that it is the duty of any public representative to be completely and totally honest about their beliefs and intentions before being elected (cue laughter). We run into all kinds of problems when politicians claim their personal beliefs won't effect them, and then do act on their personal beliefs once elected (I said I’d just be your avatar but I lied).
My other caveat is that the vast majority of the time one doesn't have some deep-rooted and passionately believed conviction on whatever the issue is (e.g. street naming convention). In this case arbitrarily picking your idea over anyone else's without consultation is foolish.
I suppose in the end I'm just looking for any degree of integrity that doesn't exist and never has existed and I really need to stop thinking and voting as if it did exist.
Post a Comment
<< Home