Safeguarding democracy: Time for change?

It is said that fools and their money are soon parted, however the relationship between politicians and power appears fraught with complexities. Casting one's eye across the world stage, there are examples that are both curious and tragic.

We are led to believe that things are different in a democracy, but this does not legislate for the same issues of personality which are bound to exist in those who operate within any political system. Perhaps one thing that makes democracy different is the 'psychological contract' that accompanies it. Work psychologists describe this as a set of unwritten expectations that exists between parties in employment settings, yet this type of social exchange occurs wherever there are relationships. The challenge is where these expectations are not fulfilled or are completely dashed – in this sense at least politics in a democracy is no different from our daily lives. In short, mismatched expectations are the enemies of happiness.

Certainly, we have expectations of our political leaders. We like them to be effective communicators, capable of setting the tone and agenda, consistent and clear, healthy, clean living and honest – in other words, just like us!  So, herein lies the challenge for electorates: politicians are human too and are fraught with the same frailties as the rest of the population. However, this does not excuse wrong-doing which should be and is punishable, so it is vital that political institutions, like other workplaces, have reasonable and transparent procedures for dealing with misconduct. In the event of offending, should it be acceptable for the perpetrator to stay on in the job, or would they be suspended pending investigations or while appropriate actions are taken to remedy the existing problem?

In an autocratic regime, challenges to the leader are fraught with implicit threats of revenge that can undermines attempts to call out unreasonable or abusive behaviour. Again, world news shows too many examples of violence against populations within or beyond the leader's realm and seemingly without recourse to prevent or dissuade them. As many would agree, this is a desperately sad reflection on what is somehow tolerated on the world stage and demands urgent attention by the global community. In addition, it also suggests that the prevalence of so much that is wrong in the behaviour of some leaders has a weathering effect that risks numbing us to its regularity and even its appalling nature. Yet, where things are wrong, people – including most politicians – jump to action to help those who are on the receiving end, as we have seen this year and previously.  

The opportunity to head things off before they reach a boiling point seems quite a different matter, yet we know that serial abuses of power are likely to predict further ones. In most types of workplace, we would hope these are spotted, monitored and addressed. What happens too often in political institutions is that the population can see or deduce what is happening, but those more closely involved are less able to admit it or take action. A better balance between treating parliaments as workplaces and tolerating parliamentary institutions as conduits for the use of political power, could help to restore some of the faith that is lost when a leader or prominent politician flouts expectations, conventions and rules.

It may not be a popular consideration, but if you ask politicians why they have entered politics it becomes apparent that most are motivated by a desire to bring about some form of positive change, whether in their locality or nationally. Certainly, they are generally likely to be ambitious, but it is where this desire to succeed oversteps the bounds of reasonableness that trouble can set in. It is likely that most politicians have a sense of where the line is, but the procedures for stopping a particularly forceful individual are too often inadequate. Where expectations are not matched, indeed abused, then the warning lights are clear for all to see – things do not need to reach an impasse or at worst the breakdown of effective government. Echoing the expressed sentiments of honesty and integrity – politics must do better, for the sake of all.