What is the role or purpose of politics in the modern world?

brianthebard

Quite simply as the question puts it, what do you feel is the role of politicians in our society? Its often quite rightly pointed out that civil servants have the biggest input into policy making, and most of them are there far longer than the politicians. They can influence policy in a way governments can't, at least when voted out of office. There's about 30,000 civil servants in Brussels atm, working away, creating laws, policy, etc. Totally unelected and unaccountable to the citizens of the EU. The people we elect have very little to do with how the EU is run. Same here at home, and I'll wager in most democracies in the West. So what are they for, and are they doing their job well? (question isn't fully formed in my head atm, so feel free to wander in your replies. kthnkbye)

Mossyfields

Without giving this much thought , i suggest the purpose of politics is to create a condition of a continuously improving society. On a global level, this means avoiding war and conflict. On a national level, that means improving the living conditions of all, (emphasis on all)

brianthebard

That's politics, not politicians.

SkepticOne

brianthebard wrote: »

That's politics, not politicians.

Possibly the thread title is confusing.

turgon

I suppose one could take the stance that politicians are the parents of the civil servants. If the civil servants act bad at Aunties house and break her Malaysian jar, the daddy has to pay up for it. So the servants are in effect made accountable to the politician, and thus to the people.

Or maybe its just to give an illusion of democracy.

But realistically, dont the politicians influence the civil servants in policy directions etc etc??

Red Hand

turgon wrote: »

I suppose one could take the stance that politicians are the parents of the civil servants. If the civil servants act bad at Aunties house and break her Malaysian jar, the daddy has to pay up for it. So the servants are in effect made accountable to the politician, and thus to the people.

Or maybe its just to give an illusion of democracy.

But realistically, dont the politicians influence the civil servants in policy directions etc etc??

Ever watch "Yes Minister"? The civil servant in it always manages to minimise the effectivness of the Minister's plans. The Minister's influence is usually kept to a minimum and it is the civil service that comes up with practical solutions to problems.

I agree with the illusion of democracy comment. Like, we have short memories (and unrealistic expectations). We vote in politicians who promise us something in return. They get into office, they may try and implement what they promised, but are confronted with a reality. What they promise isn't achieved (or at least, changed or altered to some degree), but what do you know, it's election time and it's promise time again.

mike65

Politicans are there to provide a feeling of reassuring continuity in a chaotic world (or they are in this country since the same ones keep getting re-elected!).

brianthebard

mike65 wrote: »

Politicans are there to provide a feeling of reassuring continuity in a chaotic world (or they are in this country since the same ones keep getting re-elected!).

But if that was the case then we would just have the civil servants and not the politicians, who add to the instability and have to be re-elected or can be voted in or out.

sceptre

brianthebard wrote: »

But if that was the case then we would just have the civil servants and not the politicians, who add to the instability and have to be re-elected or can be voted in or out.

These days they're supposed to be our policy-setting representatives on the inside. Then again, I just assume that Finance is being ruled by mandarins whose decisions mean they must have graduated in the 1970s.

brianthebard

Yes that's one of the things that occurred to me in making this thread. Also I'm not sure if its just way History is written or if it was actually the case, but figures like Bismarck say in political terms and influence don't exist anymore. I know that's kind of a high mark to make, but I can't imagine him being told what the country really needed by some civil servants? Whereas now there's no sense that initiative is truly with the politicans, in our country but in the EU as I pointed out, and others. You have to look at Chavez for someone who seems to actually wield power in a more than symbolic manner, and who's influence is clearly seen in policy making, and of course he is decried by Western democracies because of it. Perhaps jealousy on our politicans part?

Kama

I'd venture that their purpose is to pay off whoever bought them, whether you think of it in straight FF-tent corruption terms or in more elegant and respectable Selectorate Theory.

On a different axis of understanding, their role is as emotional containers, whether for hope, pride, or blame; the New Messianic Aeon of Obama, the scapegoating of systemic corruption in individuals, someone to blame the graveyard of Health on; helpful hooks for hopes and anxieties, a human face to hang an abstract issue on.

Or another view would be that they are there to take the fall when needed; the advantage of being a power-behind-the-throne, whether bureaucratic or otherwise, is that your 'superior' may be voted out or decapitated, but you tend to remain. That's been my cynics reading of the emphasis in formalist democratic accounts of the 'vote the bastards out' model; Bill Hicks was an early imprint here...'But there's just one guy holding up two puppets!'. Politics as distracting Spectacle, a neutering of the demos, progressively emptied of substantive meaning by a managerialist consensus.

What the Eurosceps metonymically call Brussels links in here; increased autonomy for a central government with shallower democratic devices than the constituent countries, constant calls for 'efficiency' in decision-making (which is of course a different kind of 'efficiency' than say, an autocracy like Chavez ;D), more fast-tracking on the lines of the secret trilogues...Democratic forms have always been accompanied by the desires and requirements of elites to 'manage' and 'guide' the feckless Mob...in their own best interests, of course...ofc ofc...

The Lisbon trends were interesting on these lines; notice the emphasis on 'compromise' and 'accumulated political capital', or more crudely the argument that Europe had 'done good for us', hence we should pay it back, and the subsequent confusion and outright irritation as to why we didn't stay bought, or the failure of the political class to sell its bought-ness to the electorate. Decision-making as horse-trading, akin to old market-fundie wet dreams of vote auctions, investments in the vote-banks.

Besides the argument about whether a revote is democratic (it is, ish, imo, with some emphasis on the ish), the technocratic-managerialist assumptions appear plain, proiding ample fodder for the Euroscep and paranoid: the 'real decisions' have been made, what is required is assent from a recalcitrant populace, and the engineering of this assent is approached in the same rationalised manner: assume an end, and construct the means. Politicians in this case are less representative of their constituents (those from whom, in ideal theory, their power is constituted) than organs of communication, or to use the word neutrally, propaganda.

Jacque Ellul wrote extensively on these requirements of mass-technological society to manage ideas and discourses and hence effect action; from an equal and opposite position so did Edward Bernays. With the application of scientific technique to the constituent masses, agenda-setting power and the corralling of acceptable discussion comes full circle; politicans here are perhaps middlemen and mediators, a middle class between rulers (those who 'buy') and ruled (those who are to be 'bought').

Mossyfields

What is the role or purpose of politicans in the modern world?

The role of the politician is to practice politics,(described above).:D
Their purpose is to achieve the goals they publicly advocate.;)
Goals will of course differ from one politician to another, and thats what makes politics interesting. Unfortunately some politicians advocate issues for their own personal gain, which is not actually politics.

Anyone can be a politican :eek:,all you really need is a hard neck, and a big ego. There are good, bad, clever, stupid, dull and some brilliant politicians. But whats really funny is ...... any of them can be elected, not just the good guys.

Generally politicians do a good job, most of them are good people and well intentioned. The work they do at local, national and global level is mostly positive. I know people like to knock politicians, but who is electing them ?? not me.

brianthebard

And do they achieve the goals they advocate? Do they represent you, are you happy to look at the government and say they are what you believe in?

Mossyfields

The politicians I vote for dont get elected, so they dont achieve their goals, however, that does not mean they should give up. :rolleyes:
The current government are the politicians who were elected at the last election. There should be no surprises, they've been knocking around for years, and they are continuing to act as they always have.
I would be very annoyed if I had voted for any of them.

trentf

The role of modern politics is to distract the ordinary citizen into thinking he has a say or voice in what controls his life.

Thats what the common theme of politics is worldwide. The same people getting into power over and over again and the people somehow hoping things will get better.

It will end though it will end when people say 'what the hell do we need politicians for?' and then realise they are responsible for their own lives not some person sitting in office.

nesf

I'll contribute more to this some other time when I'm not sick.


Right now politicians have to sit on top of a sprawling bureaucracy that tries to manage the economy. In a sense they legitimise and "rubber stamp" decisions in this system while operating under essentially limited information since the system is what provides information to them. I don't think this works very well but unfortunately the people aren't in a position to judge specialist expertise so there doesn't seem to be much of an alternative if one wants to preserve elected officials.