Attracting better politicians

A politician in a democracy is a strange job. Perhaps that is why most of the current ones do not serve us well. I wonder how we could change that.

Like so much else, the role has evolved too slowly from its historical roots. Back in the 19^th century, an elected politician was often unpaid and usually had private wealth. The entire electorate were privileged men (no women), and some of the gentry felt attracted to sitting in parliament, perhaps because their Dad did, or because they felt some civic duty, or perhaps because they had some urge to campaign for some vested interest.

So the job was part time. Skills needed were free time, independent wealth and some networking and persuasion. Perks included lots of free meals and alcohol. It was not necessary to be all that intelligent or even diligent, the civil service did all the real work. It also tended to be a job for life – age was an asset, and incumbency very powerful.

Well, this list is hardly ideal if the intent of politicians is to make good decisions on behalf of a populace. Yet the list has hardly changed! Politicians are still usually old, of limited expertise, and independently wealthy. The reason is that the system and working methods have not evolved with modern times. One reason for that is that the system as it is benefits the ones who set the rules, the politicians themselves.

I have a soft spot for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats in the previous coalition government in the UK. They were relentlessly attacked by the press, and their flimsy, protest-based support crumbled under scrutiny, but actually their record was good. They achieved excellent signature policy goals via increases in personal allowances and education premia for disadvantaged kids. Yet the Tories managed to stifle the main goal of reforming the electoral system. The Liberals had a selfish interest in reform to give them more seats, but they also had creditable goals of fairness and professionalism in politicians. They wanted to make the House of Lords less unrepresentative, but also to make political careers more attractive to women and people without financial means. The Tories ruthlessly blocked all this. Getting turkeys to vote for Christmas is not a simple task.

It is quite instructive to look at the backgrounds of politicians across the world. The Economist completed a survey a few years back. In the developed world, the leading profession is lawyer, and nowadays second comes career politician, with business careers third. In the developing world, businessmen (indeed usually men) predominate. Sadly, that reflects the corrupt benefits of political influence to business.

Lawyers don’t generally make effective politicians, in my opinion. Ted Cruz is a good example of a lawyer politician. He has money and a good network from his career. He uses those to discover core positions that resonate with a group of voters and, more important, with wealthy sponsors. Then he uses his training to articulate arguments to block any position that an opponent advocates, even resorting to tactics such as filibuster and shutting down legislatures. The net result is a stifling cynicism and blocked law making.

Career politicians can go the same way. They have an even bigger incentive to win and retain power because they don’t have a back-up career; it is success or nothing. Hillary Clinton is a good example of a career politician. She spent her early years building her sponsor network, and building a reputation around some effective policy implementation, in Hillary’s case centred on the rights of children. Then, once entrenched, they behave like the lawyers. Now, depending on your degree of cynicism, you can view those policy successes in different ways. Is she really passionate about improving the lives of kids? Or is she really just passionate about building her brand? Probably the truth lies somewhere in between.

Still, lawyers and career politicians are certainly preferable to another archetype, the rich narcissistic bully, of which of course Trump is the textbook case. Many developing world leaders fit the same mould. Those people are often corrupt, ruthless, and peddlers of rabble-rousing type policies.

We should not be surprised that these are the type of politicians we get. It is a special type of life. A politician must usually be pretty cynical and unprincipled to succeed, always avoiding a gaffe rather than taking a risk, collecting a dollar rather than defending a good cause. They are in the spotlight, frequently dissected and abused. Only those with a huge ego or a certain cynical determination will generally be attracted.

There are some wonderful exceptions. The young labour MP who was killed during the Brexit campaign, Jo Cox, came to politics as a young activist, and had the passion allied with the practicality to make a great success of her job. Many such young people abandon politics once they see the cynicism required, choosing instead a life in NGO’s or international bodies like the UN. They do great things there, but politics needs all the talent it can get. Arguably, David Miliband falls into the same category.

Two other exceptions come from another throwback category, children from Church families. The fathers of both Angela Merkel and Theresa May were preachers, and those two seem to have acquired a strong sense of civic duty combined with sound values and more practical skills. Both have come through the brutal rough and tumble of political careers with unsullied reputations and exceptional staying power.

When considering just how woeful the political cadre has become, we can only thank goodness for the enduring quality of the civil service in many developed countries. I believe that is also a positive legacy in British colonies, leading to generally stronger governance in those compared with former colonies of France or other powers, where less priority was placed on developing that sort of institution.

So what can we do to make politics more effective? Reformers to tend concentrate on the fairness of a political system, but that is unlikely to attract more of the right sort of talent into this crucial vocation. Finance reform, especially in the US, can only help, but perhaps that is marginal too. Somehow we need to change the entire job description and way of working, Is that possible?

I don’t have many solutions to this quandary. Making the job smaller and more compartmentalised might be a good principle. That would certainly deter the Trumps, Clintons and Cruzes, with their grand ambitions and overblown ambitions. The Coxes would still be drawn to make a difference, and the tortoise Merkels and Mays could still contribute.

Smaller political jobs could be achieved in many ways. Devolution of power locally has great potential. Delegation can also happen upwards, with expert bodies like the UN given greater influence to constrain the playing field. Experts could also be given autonomy over more national policy areas: central banks nowadays control monetary policy implementation, so why not fiscal as well? Politicians can define key principles, and leave implementation to others, taking a lot of the current risks away. Another way to create smaller political jobs could be to make more of them part-time or short tenure.

The current political class is woefully inadequate. A large reason for this is that the current job description predominantly attracts unsuitable people. To rectify this requires more than marginal reform. A key reform principle could be to make the roles smaller.

But here is the bad news. Of course, only one group of people have the power to legislate such reforms. That group are the current politicians. So I don’t think we should be holding our breath on this one.