Politics and Experience (1 Viewer)

[frog12986]

A question that has been posed quite frequently is that of the relative experience of politicians. Do they possess the life experience to fully understand the nature of society and the policy approaches that should be adopted?

Even on the face value of the biographical information available on a large number of politicans reveals either intense party or union affiliation (particularly in the ALP), previous careers as advisors or staffers, and careers that have centred around academic pursuits.

Is this the type of experience that we should expect of the indivudals who are making decisions on behalf of the electorate? Or rather, would we be better served to entrust such roles in individuals who have experienced the hardships of life, whether it be operating a business, working on the front line or living outside of the protected walls of academic and political insitutions?

With a prevalence of such persons in the ALP, is it a contributory factor to the perception of the 'out of touch' approach of the federal parliamentary party?

Do politicians need this academic and political party background to be able to fully understand the dynamics of government and associated practices?

All very pertinent questions in my opinion (on both sides of politics), and questions that should be discussed...

 

[Captain Gh3y]

An interesting question; at any rate the old Labor formula of

law student --> union official --> ethnic branch stacking --> safe seat

doesn't seem to be working for them anymore.

 

[Generator]

I couldn't resist. An excellent thread, frog.

A question that has been posed quite frequently is that of the relative experience of politicians. Do they possess the life experience to fully understand the nature of society and the policy approaches that should be adopted?

Even on the face value of the biographical information available on a large number of politicans reveals either intense party or union affiliation (particularly in the ALP), previous careers as advisors or staffers, and careers that have centred around academic pursuits.

Is this the type of experience that we should expect of the indivudals who are making decisions on behalf of the electorate? Or rather, would we be better served to entrust such roles in individuals who have experienced the hardships of life, whether it be operating a business, working on the front line or living outside of the protected walls of academic and political insitutions?

With a prevalence of such persons in the ALP, is it a contributory factor to the perception of the 'out of touch' approach of the federal parliamentary party?

Do politicians need this academic and political party background to be able to fully understand the dynamics of government and associated practices?

All very pertinent questions in my opinion (on both sides of politics), and questions that should be discussed...

On the one hand, though I do think that the catchments for our political parties need to be broadened, I don't see the point in arguing that a particular person's experiences and their decisions will be any more valuable or publicly acceptable than those of a different person merely because one has experienced more 'hardship' than the other. That said, though I'm not in favour of the 'hardship' argument, I do think that there is reason to argue in favour of a minimum age (not a legislated minimum age, mind) so that our politicians are able to demonstrate a degree of 'life experience', the sort that comes with age with rather than a person's chosen career. We'll never be free of the idea that our politicians are out of touch (and this applies to all, no matter whether they were a union hack or a successful farmer or business lobbyist), but at the very least there's room to give the impression that our politicians have lived a little, even if their experiences in no way mirror those of their constituents.

On the other hand, it's also clear that a large number of people are themselves out of touch when it comes to politics. In part this because political discussions are considered to be a social taboo. Another reason for this was recently raised by Lindsay Tanner when he spoke about academic pursuits and the Australian population. If the population at large shuns the academic and the political, just how are the politicians meant to be more in touch without compromising the supposed integrity of the system?

Unlike others, I'm hardly of the opinion that person needs a degree (be it law or otherwise) in order to be a successful politician, but there is a pressing need for anyone considering a political career to understand the system. Unfortunately, most who consider our politicians to be out of touch are themselves out of touch when it comes to politics, with many preferring the cricket to books or to a broadsheet such as the Aus or the SMH. If the 'national psyche' could be reoriented so that the political and the academic aren't maligned to such an extent, then that would go a long way towards addressing the problem - not only would the talent pool for our parliaments be rich in terms of size, interest and ability, but the politicians themselves would be regarded as being more in tune with the public.

---

To cut a long story short, I don't agree with the particularlities of the 'hardships of life' argument, but I do think that there's reason to argue for a generic sense of experience otherwise known as 'life experience.' I also think that the 'out of touch' argument flows both ways, and though it's far more difficult, I for one would prefer to see the public conscious change so that it accepts the political and the academic rather than have the parties pay lip service to apathetic voters.

 

[frog12986]

If the population at large shuns the academic and the political, just how are the politicians meant to be more in touch without compromising the supposed integrity of the system?

.

A good point. I know for one, that many 'average' Australians do not fully understand the intracacies of the political process, nor do they understand the complexity of policy implementation. Many believe it's as easy as a click of the fingers, and underestimate the processes involved..

However, I do believe that whilst there will always be the academic element (which is of course needed), diversity in representation is important.