Do politicians using their positions to influence campaigns etc inappropriately?

u2me

Just thought I would throw this up out of interest to see what people feel regarding whether politicians use their positions to influence campaigns etc inappropriately and whether this offence should be punishable under law if they were found to be doing so!

biko

I have no particular feelings on the matter.
Do you have evidence either way?

CramCycle

You mean like undeclared lobbying? or do you mean doing their job as its a concern of their constituents?

kippy

Not sure what you mean OP. Can you provide a (made up) example?

Solutionking

u2me wrote: »

Just thought I would throw this up out of interest to see what people feel regarding whether politicians use their positions to influence campaigns etc inappropriately and whether this offence should be punishable under law if they were found to be doing so!

Example? evidence?

Fann Linn

Or do you mean giving their mates documents which are clearly marked, 'Private, not for circulation'?

Cos if ye are I know someone who fits the bill.

u2me

I was just thinking along the traditional line and the relationships of politicians within and between social groups (e.g. families, constituents, workplaces, bureaucracy, media, etc.) and how politician's actions may be influenced one way or another by such. I suppose political bias in essence and the slanting of information to make a political position seem more attractive etc.

Hence based on such relationships and if they were found to be using their positions to influence campaigns etc with a bias to deliberately undermine other candidates or other entities then should there be a designated legal process to make them accountable?

ohnonotgmail

u2me wrote: »

I was just thinking along the traditional line and the relationships of politicians within and between social groups (e.g. families, constituents, workplaces, bureaucracy, media, etc.) and how politician's actions may be influenced one way or another by such. I suppose political bias in essence and the slanting of information to make a political position seem more attractive etc.

Hence based on such relationships and if they were found to be using their positions to influence campaigns etc with a bias to deliberately undermine other candidates or other entities then should there be a designated legal process to make them accountable?

you haven't really clarified anything. politicians are influenced by their constituents, the media and other groups all the time. it would be odd if they weren't. what is it you are trying to get at?

antoinolachtnai

Is persuasion, influence and the representation of constituents’ interests not what elected representatives are supposed to do?

u2me

Of course, politics is the art of influence , but the elected rep should only act in the remit of supporting the best interests of the whole of their constituency. Anything outside this remit where a politician is suspected to be acting in their own /families or for/against selected entities etc is the grey area I am protruding to and a designated process to investigate any such suspected cases may be useful. Political benchmarking to a small degree, keeping them on the straight and narrow.

To put it another way, power is influence. Politics as we know it is a cut-throat war of power and those with a more pronounced ruthless streak will tend to succeed, you can build your own psychological profile of such candidates.

What I see as one of the great problems we have in Irish politics is most of our TD’s are in general not nasty, quite the opposite in fact they are nice people which are strongly encouraged to be faithful, obedient, and loyal to their parties - which in doing so is great if they were in the army but is pretty useless regards progressing in politics.

Hence, more often than not, we end up with the candidates with the more pronounced ruthless streak rising through the ranks as better candidates get discredited or overlooked.

To evolve politically we need the good ones to stand up, stop being so nice, to start learning to unleash hell where necessary, and stop letting themselves be walked over.

The designated process I mentioned would hopefully act as a small deterrent to the less scrupulous candidates and help even the playing field so more of the good people get the opportunity to progress.

Of course the above is just born from the idle mind of a lockdown detainee and should only be taken as such , general ramblings from the process of inception.

blanch152

u2me wrote: »

Of course, politics is the art of influence , but the elected rep should only act in the remit of supporting the best interests of the whole of their constituency. Anything outside this remit where a politician is suspected to be acting in their own /families or for/against selected entities etc is the grey area I am protruding to and a designated process to investigate any such suspected cases may be useful. Political benchmarking to a small degree, keeping them on the straight and narrow.

To put it another way, power is influence. Politics as we know it is a cut-throat war of power and those with a more pronounced ruthless streak will tend to succeed, you can build your own psychological profile of such candidates.

What I see as one of the great problems we have in Irish politics is most of our TD’s are in general not nasty, quite the opposite in fact they are nice people which are strongly encouraged to be faithful, obedient, and loyal to their parties - which in doing so is great if they were in the army but is pretty useless regards progressing in politics.

Hence, more often than not, we end up with the candidates with the more pronounced ruthless streak rising through the ranks as better candidates get discredited or overlooked.

To evolve politically we need the good ones to stand up, stop being so nice, to start learning to unleash hell where necessary, and stop letting themselves be walked over.

The designated process I mentioned would hopefully act as a small deterrent to the less scrupulous candidates and help even the playing field so more of the good people get the opportunity to progress.

Of course the above is just born from the idle mind of a lockdown detainee and should only be taken as such , general ramblings from the process of inception.

Can you give an example of a specific issue where this comes into play?

Pasteur.

There's no escape from bias and influence

Comes with the territory

Lobbying/influencing is the nature of the game. Its what politics is!


I think we need a lot less national politicians(TDs), but more (em)powerful local ones (councillors).

Local councillors should not have much power at national level, or use local issues to bargain/leverage on national issues, national politicians should simply legislate.

u2me

@ Blanch152: Mahon report is the obvious one, but we do have new anticorruption laws since 2018 which tightened it a bit. To prove it is extremely difficult so next to impossible to get them before a judge. The rise of foreign funds could be one for the future.

My argument is more towards the activities within parties and relevant ministerial departments. The division of power in parties and the influence used etc. I just think many good people get overlooked or discredited on purpose if they are not willing to bend to the will of the greater powers.

Although, I imagine for those in power it would be feasible to promote one aspect of industry over another hence pushing business in a direction you want, and if your cousin or whoever happens to have a big firm in that area that cleans up - isn't that is just an added bonus of how things just happened to work out .

u2me

@Blank152 *point of note* the examples used are just to outline how it may be possible for corruption to occur in present times but it is extremely unlikely to be happening in our government today. The point which I did not get across too well in that post is that if it is possible then is it not better to have some kind of political benchmarking in place than not? Prevention is better than cure.....

Pasteur.

u2me wrote: »

@Blank152 *point of note* the examples used are just to outline how it may be possible for corruption to occur in present times but it is extremely unlikely to be happening in our government today. The point which I did not get across too well in that post is that if it is possible then is it not better to have some kind of political benchmarking in place than not? Prevention is better than cure.....

Corruption is happening now , were just not hearing about it

u2me

Well, never say never, but it is definitely a lot less (I hope) since the new laws came in between 2015-2018. I would still like to see some kind of political benchmarking system based on a performance index. If anything unusual popped up then it could be forwarded for further independent review.

I just think there are many politicians who have great potential but never get to fulfill their potential because of the ruthlessness of internal party politics and politics in general. I imagine it's vicious and most would not have the stomach for it. Hence the need to try to change the system so these people can get a fair chance as well.

antoinolachtnai

u2me wrote: »

Well, never say never, but it is definitely a lot less (I hope) since the new laws came in between 2015-2018. I would still like to see some kind of political benchmarking system based on a performance index. If anything unusual popped up then it could be forwarded for further independent review.

I just think there are many politicians who have great potential but never get to fulfill their potential because of the ruthlessness of internal party politics and politics in general. I imagine it's vicious and most would not have the stomach for it. Hence the need to try to change the system so these people can get a fair chance as well.

If someone can’t advance through a bit of party politics it’s hard to see how they would be much use dealing with pressure groups in public office, or on the international stage.

The people you refer to might be better suited to special advisor roles.

There is already a political benchmarking system provided for in the Constitution.

u2me

I understand what you are saying but I disagree, I think you are viewing it from the traditional authoritarian dominated structure our political parties are founded on. But what if we change the structure?

Let's take Apple as an example, they moved from an authoritarian structure and went on to see great success. Their hierarchy structure slightly changed. More collaboration occurred, subordinates had more autonomy. The structure became less rigid. Why? Good people with great potential stepped up into roles, they collaborated and the results were extraordinary.

Point and case; change can be very good even in already successful organisations and having a more open structure instead of an authoritarian one could bring great benefits to our ailing political parties.

Let's apply such a structure to a political party, instead of one authoritarian leader we have three collaborative leaders focusing on their area of specialty. The role of taoiseach can be rotated between them. The whole dynamic changes, the struggle for power is diluted. Now those ones with the more pronounced ruthless streak actually become more of a liability to the greater cause instead of an asset and the ones you said are probably better off in special advisor roles will most likely take the opportunity to move forward and become the dynamic of the whole party.

Just some food for thought …..

antoinolachtnai

u2me wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but I disagree, I think you are viewing it from the traditional authoritarian dominated structure our political parties are founded on.

You don’t do your ‘food for thought’ any favours by characterizing my (perfectly mainstream) views on it as authoritarian in origin.

u2me

Hi, sorry, should have put Autocratic instead of authoritarian -

It is just away of describing an organizational leadership style, it just means from the top-down and everything runs through the leader. The same as in the traditional structure of many companies and political parties.

Contemporary styles tend to collaborate, share information, personnel and skills across departments. Both can be equally successful in business but a more contemporary approach I think maybe better suited to the more volatile nature of politics.

I was just trying to say it may be worth a try and that change does not always have to end in disaster and can end up being ok or even better than before in some ways.

antoinolachtnai

u2me wrote: »

Hi, sorry, should have put Autocratic instead of authoritarian -

It is just away of describing an organizational leadership style, it just means from the top-down and everything runs through the leader. The same as in the traditional structure of many companies and political parties.

Contemporary styles tend to collaborate, share information, personnel and skills across departments. Both can be equally successful in business but a more contemporary approach I think maybe better suited to the more volatile nature of politics.

I was just trying to say it may be worth a try and that change does not always have to end in disaster and can end up being ok or even better than before in some ways.

That is even worse.

But anyway, you are shifting onto different ground now.

I don’t recognize the country you describe. More than ever before this place is run by tier upon tier of committees, from Micheal, Leo and Eamonn at the top all the way down to your school’s parent association. They spend their waking hours taking soundings and floating balloons to try to find broadly acceptable directions for policy. The idea that we are ruled by some sort of autocrat is ridiculous.

u2me

I am just on about individual parties and their structures, coalitions are difficult to operate in at the best of times and in the present environment they are doing the best they can I'd say. If they switched to a more contemporary style we might get back to a 1 party government again where it easier to implement policies and make a bit of progress.

antoinolachtnai

u2me wrote: »

I am just on about individual parties and their structures, coalitions are difficult to operate in at the best of times and in the present environment they are doing the best they can I'd say. If they switched to a more contemporary style we might get back to a 1 party government again where it easier to implement policies and make a bit of progress.

So a ‘contemporary’ style as you call it is bad for the government but would be good for political parties, so good in fact that we would go back to having one or two dominant parties as a result, and that would be good, because they would be able to implement policies faster?

AndrewJRenko

u2me wrote: »

If they switched to a more contemporary style we might get back to a 1 party government again where it easier to implement policies and make a bit of progress.

Based on what we've seen in the UK for the past few decades, I'm not quite sure that would be an improvement.

u2me

In coalitions even with pre-government negotiations and agreement on priorities, which do help minimize (but does not eliminate) disputes about policy decisions, these disputes can impede policy implementation and in some cases election promises might not get completed at all during a term. I think a small coalition or a single party has more scope to be productive during their term.