Motion: THW restrict who can run for office without restricting who can vote for one
Role: PM (govt.)
Political Life is and has been problematic for years and decades if not centuries. In the following I will go through the pit and pratfalls of politics complete with a conclusion that offers a solution at the end. My speech will touch upon the basic mechanism that is amiss and after that make a sweeping proposition if not a generalization.
What is wrong with politics is that the same thing has happened to it as to so many other areas of charity or organisations or funds. It is more preoccupied with preserving itself and its continuation than its objectives or what it was originally meant to deliver into this world.
The greatest dilemma is that no politician wants to give up power after achieving it. The easy way to retain power is to avoid any cumbersome political measures (as judged by constituents) and advertise lavishly in the run-up to elections. As money starts to play an ever bigger role in all things, politicians sometimes have to go in for dubious arrangements that flirt with breaking the very laws that the politician is supposed to help legislate in order to get money. At the same time, awkward political decisions are postponed indefinitely, so that re-election will get more probable and one’s name does not appear under or next to them. The most popular way to resolve any kind of problem is to take out more loans on the govt’s tab, so that there is enough money to go around in troubled times and during transitional periods. It’s just that these transitional periods sometimes last forever. Those loans won’t ever get paid back.
All in all, politicians are enamored with their ”popularity” and the high airs in the corridors of power. Their only concern is to stay in power, toe the party line and make sure they have enough money for re-election. This way, little can change. The system has reached a sclerotic state of stasis.
Here’s the deal: all has to change. We have to implement a state where politics is pure. As I see it, there is only one way:
a) politicians have to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their party. They have to take the flak for the decision they make (when it turns unpopular) and let someone else in their party fill up their shoes and take the glory. All for the sake of the party. Individual comes after the party. Amen.
b) a politician needs to have a profession or a source of income that (s)he can fall back upon on his or her de-election. A politician needs to have skills outside of politics and the party. (S)he is only as good as his or her other credentials.
In consequence, don’t vote for politicians whose families’ bread and livelihood depend on politics without resort to other income. This will lead to a situation where the breadwinner-cum-politician of the family will not take any risks anymore politically in order to feed his or her family through continuous re-election, debt-taking and hanging out with businessmen of dubious reputation. Politicians who can afford to fail and turn unpopular are the only politicians we need. We can’t afford to have ”professional politicians”. Thank You.
Puheen kesto: 6 min 37 sek
Arvio: * * * * +. Puhe on pääministeripuheeksi pitkä ja ytimekäs, mutta siinä on aikaa kysymyksille, vaikka niitä ei toisaalta edes kannattaisi esittää yhtä enempää tässä vaiheessa.