Dysfunctional Politics and Political Career Paths

On 18 Aug 2010, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article entitled “Paths to Politics” (unfortunately I can’t find a link to it). The most disturbing statistic in the article is the proportion of politicians whose career path has been student politician, union administrator and / or political staffer, MP ie. have never been employed in the real world prior to entering parliament. The figure quoted for the ALP (who pioneered the practice) is at least two thirds, but the Liberals appear to be trying hard to catch up.

MPs are often accused of having (a) no business acumen, (b) little capacity for innovative problem solving and (c) no idea of most people’s needs and priorities in life. The scientific and technical knowledge of most MPs is appalling. Looking at their career paths, it is little wonder.

Harking back to when “everyman” could enter parliament is not the answer either.

There are only two real qualifications needed to enter parliament in Australia (and most Western countries):

1.      Joining the ALP or Libs and following the career path above. If you’re really unlikeable and not a good choice to contest a lower house seat, they’ll put you number 1 or 2 on the senate ticket.

2.      Popularity amongst members of a sectional interest group can get you elected to the senate eg.The Greens, The Shooters, Steve Fielding, Fred Nile, Pauline Hanson.

Of course there are people who enter parliament as a member of the Libs, Nats or ALP who have had successful careers in other fields and do not fit into either of the above categories. Malcolm Turnbull is a current example. There are also independents who get elected because they are strong local candidates running on local issues (which many would say is what MPs are meant to do). Tony Windsor, Bob Katter and Ted Mack are examples, although the first two were long time Nats before becoming independents.

My point is that the above two paths are sufficient to be elected. I’m not saying they are necessary. The problem is, their sufficiency has resulted in many MPs who are incompetent.

The abject floundering of Victorian Family First senator Steve Fielding on the issue of climate change is a good example.

Here’s a transcript of an ABC interview which makes him seem like Isaac Newton compared to some of his confused utterances on the subject. His approach, like that of many politicians, seems to be to ask for the issues to be explained to him and then he’ll make a decision. The problem is that he is apparently incapable of reasoning out the issues by himself and so chooses to believe the claims of people with whom he identifies for other reasons, probably because the Christian Right in the US don’t accept climate change … more because they perceive climate change to be an issue of the left rather than due to a capable analysis and refutation of the science.

I recall a 30 second grab of Steve Fielding on the nightly news where he said he wanted the issues around climate change explained to him in “a way the average person can understand”. It’s complex science, you fool. If most people could understand the issues, we would have recognized and solved the problems years ago.

At least in the two major parties, there is the possibility of some synthesis of the limited knowledge and understanding of some MPs into a vaguely sensible collective decision. Sometimes it even happens. But with a lone dipshit or a small number of clowns from a minor party, what hope is there of even this occurring?

Parliaments are riddled with members who have neither the education nor the intellectual capacity to understand or manage complex issues like the economy or climate change. In the major parties, society is mostly, but not always protected from such individuals by the back benches and party unity. However, there is no such protection from the minor parties and independents: they often hold the balance of power.

It is not acceptable for a politician to ask for complex issues to be explained to them in a way that the “average person” can understand. If this could easily be done, the issues wouldn’t be complex, would they?

The lack of necessary qualifications to enter parliament is a serious flaw in our implementation of parliamentary democracy. Why are extensive qualifications required for every important, difficult job bar one: governing the country? This is a job for highly educated, intelligent, open minded people with diverse life experience, not self serving careerists or well (or not) intentioned dimwits pushing a particular religious or political agenda.