To be in a position of leadership, and so a position where your decision-making will affect many people other than yourself, you must adhere to certain standards of honour - and responsibility. That includes awareness of the way your society and your people work, perceiving their truth, and acting on it. I do not believe our politicians do, because they are interested not in truth but in ideology. Rather than leaders, they are engineers - social engineers. They are not interested in a clear look at their people, they want their people to be what the ideologies they follow say the people should be moulded into. There's nothing wrong - and much right - with politicians arguing their own ideas and trying to pursuade the people they represent to do things a certain way. But they must still place the people's decisions first if they are truly representative leaders. If they refuse, they are dictating. If that's how their system works, it's how it works, but they shouldn't pretend to be anything else.
This to me is the core issue with our politics (and by "our" I mean all Western nations). They neither represent the people nor direct the people, but something ugly in between. They lack the clear responsibility that the dictating force bears for its actions, but because they have no real interest in the population's truth and situation (instead believing the public foolish and in need of being told what to think and do) they cannot claim to serve the populace and its varied desires.
Basically, one of the problems I have with our Western systems of government is that they have no clue what they actually are. Yes, it's a "representative democracy". But what is it? Is it a system where the people as a whole have a voice and debate among themselves to have the leaders implement some compromise as policy? Or is it a system where the power and thus responsibility lies in a leadership who "know best" and implement what they decide is best overall - and will bear the full price if proven wrong? Our representative democracy seems to try and be both, and so fails at both. The populace has no real voice - just the illusion of one, and the ability to choose which slight variation of the ideological system they live under will call the shots for the next few years - while the leaders have no real responsibility, being able to come in, do more or less what they want, and then slip out again a few years down the line, having furthered the ideological platform. And the major parties are all variations on the same ideologies anyway; any choice on the part of the public is largely meaningless if you are at odds with those ideologies. If you're not, the issues where there are divisions between parties and thus the process of choosing government might well still be meaningful. That's fine, but to others it won't be. To some, if certain key ideological perspectives shared by all major parties are flawed...what difference does it make which they choose?
Where does responsibility for a bad decision lie? Okay, this is ridiculously oversimplified, but I see it like this: In a society where the community truly has power, it lies with them. "We, collectively, implemented the new farming procedures, it's our fault the harvest is only a third of normal this year. Next year, we turn back to the old method. Oh, and those of us who acually said no to the new procedures - maybe the rest of you will put more weight on our input next time, yes?" In a society where a ruling minority make the decisions, it's those few people's responsibility, and everyone knows it. "Supreme Overlord Bob implemented the new farming procedures. That's why his farmers all stormed his castle with pitchforks and...revoked his authority. I, Supreme Overlord Barry, had better keep that in mind when I decide what to dictate".
I always assumed true democracy and dictatorship were flawed, and that the best answer was a republic (I'll get back to this). But what of our system? The community doesn't make the decisions, but nor does the ruling body bear any real responsibility, because "they're elected by the people, don't you know?" As an example, think about the "Us Damned Americans" thread a few weeks back, and the tendency bemoaned by some in there for people to condemn the American people as a whole for the policies of their government. So, let's say President Hawkclaw bombs Sandystan. As if Joe American on the street had any say in that at all! But of course the lie is that he does, isn't it? Because he got a ballot saying "do you select Senator Hawkclaw or Governor Bombsaway for President?" And no matter how much they may disagree on some issues, on others the two candidates and the parties/ideologies they speak for will agree - so where's the real choice, particularly if that isue is essential in your mind and you disagree with them? Supposedly, Joe American or George Brit or Louis Frenchman can ask the politicians to listen to their desires. But in reality they largely won't, because a) the politicians are ideological beings and social engineers, not interested in what people have to say but what their ideology dictates. They "know best", and will ensure that ideology is ascendant. And second, the politicians know the real power lies not with Joe American or George Brit but with SludgeCorps Industries or the People With Brown Hair Against Oppressive Anti-Brunette Policies movement. So to get power and thus be able to implement what the ideology they affiliate with says must be implemented, the politicians court these entities, not the people on the street. And anyway, "those ignorant people can't see how the ideas behind OurPoliticalAndSocialEngineeringConcept-ism will lead to a better world. For the greater good, they need to be educated. Educated in how our way is best. Listen to them? No, they listen to us".
That's why I don't trust our political system; it has the ugly aspects of dictatorship, but without the silver lining that in dictatorships and oligarchies there is clear responsibility and thus moral justification for the community to remove the leaders if dissatisfied (well, try to, anyway. Supreme Overlord Bob no doubt commands the loyalties of the army, but that's another issue...). In a democracy, there is not moral justification for citizens to riot and say "throw them out of office". No, that circumvents the will of the people. So our supposed democracies are not true democracies but exist in some sort of limbo between democracy and dictatorship. I always throught the place between actual democracy and dictatorship (I might say the most well-balanced and thus pleasing form of government) was a Republic, but we're not republics - no, not even the USA which was founded as one. The USA is not a republic now, it's (like pretty much all Western governments) a democracy...except this ugly form of democracy is not actually based on the will of the people at all. It's based on ideological social engineering and competition between parties and viewpoints that differ mostly on the means by which the underlying ideologies manifest. Those underlying ideologies are basically similar - and all that matters to most politicians is that they be imposed.
So that's why I distrust politicians. Also, finally, there's this: I'm biased of course, but speaking personally there are several assumptions and outlooks (I personally consider them awareness of what I consider a "truth") that a person must show awareness of before I would trust them with decisions that affect the direction of an entire society. So, a politician must exhibit certain behaviours and personal ideologies (as distinct from collective thinking and affiliation) before I trust them. No politician has ever met my criteria, presumably because they see things differently. That's of course fine, but it means I personally cannot trust their leadership. So, no, I do not trust politicians. And I fear the system is set up so that it is nearly impossible for anyone who does meet my criteria to proceed very far at all.
.
