(why are so many politicians ostensibly clever and so few demonstratively wise?)
INTRODUCTION
TO FOLLOWING ESSAY
I’d have preferred to use a more provocative graphic than Rodin’s thinker for the ad and to head the essay.
The ideal would have been a black and white photo of the members of the Bollingdon Club (founded circa 1700, Oxford). The photo depicts the 1986 members of the exclusive ‘toffs’ Club (dressed in bespoke tails) standing and sitting on sandstone steps, posing as men of destiny.
Amongst that illustrious group of less than a dozen were two future British PMs, David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Both were/are intelligent, both clever, both well-educated and both, certainly, well networked. The UK’s future leaders looked very much up to the job.
Unfortunately, when that photo was first published it was copyrighted to prevent its circulation. At the time Boris Johnson (see photo below with his girlfriend Allegra Moyston-Owen) was ‘the’ alpha male and President of the Oxford (Students’) Union. Yet this clever man proved far from wise once he attained the highest of offices.
In Australia, Malcom Turnbull was recognised, and lionised, as the most promising new PM because of his ‘intelligence’. Elizabeth Farrelly (columnist, author, speaker, architect, academic ) glowingly wrote “Malcolm will be the longest serving Prime Minister since Menzies”… “to have intelligence of this kind leading Australia is a shift of immense significance”… “the potential not just to be a practical leader in the usual way, but a moral one; a leader of minds”. Such opinions were shared by some of the most senior journalist/commentators in the Country – Kathryn Murphy, Lenore Taylor, Barry Cassidy (at least initially ) and Osman Faruqi to mention but a few. Turnbull failed to prove nearly as wise as expected. NBN and Snowy 2 (plus his own denouement as PM) attest to that .
Even very clever people in their own fields of endeavour (entertainers, influencers, academics , business leaders, bureaucrats and learned judges) sometimes demonstrate an appalling lack of wisdom when it comes to commenting on matters outside their area of expertise. Perhaps the modern world is moving too fast for wisdom to make its voice heard?
In 2018 Taylor Swift encouraged her young followers to register to vote through a link she provided. Vote.org reported that around 65,000 did so within 24 hours (and somewhere around 250,000 within three days). Her encouragement of young people to use their vote was a good thing. She avoided endorsing any party (another good thing) until this year when she came out advocating voting for Harris in the Presidential election.
It remains to see how significant her endorsement proves to be.
If her followers examine ‘why’ they should vote for Harris – and decide they agree with the star – that’s another positive. But if they blindly vote for Harris simply because their heroine tells them to do things are more problematical. Swift has a huge following. Her followers trust her integrity and probably her judgement on matters political. And therein lies the danger. Swift is both talented and clever – and she’s her own woman (or as Kristina Keneally the ex-NSW Premier put it “I’m nobody’s girl”). But is she wise? To answer that question we need to look at what wisdom is-and how it’s acquired or lost.
I hope you find this month’s essay interesting. As always your feedback is welcomed.
Tim Lenehan
PROLOGUE
Economists (amongst others) have long been aware of the strong connection between scientific research and economic development. So too was Bob Hawke. In 1986 he launched ‘the clever country’ initiative. Turnbull revived the theme many years later with his ‘innovation country’ variant.
Both initiatives met with only limited success for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Australian capital markets have always proved reluctant to finance the development of Australian innovations through to the production-marketing stage. Our big ideas go overseas for commercialisation to win profits, usually, for multinationals.
Episode three of this (cleverness) quest has been the recent push to encourage university students to study STEM subjects – to provide young talent for the research sector and engineers, computer and IT specialists etc. for business.
Conventional wisdom has it that this refocus in education will make for a better Australia. And it probably will, to a degree.
But will becoming a clever country in science and STEM matters translate into Australia becoming a harmonious and resilient democracy? Maybe not. This is so because the
good government in a democracy requires different skills, an understanding of the complexities of human behaviours – and something we rarely think about today, wisdom.
THE TREND?
Wisdom is more often found amongst the old than the young…in that brief life-stage period between daily involvement in working for a living and dementia. At least that’s what many old people say. The young would vehemently deny this sclerotic view of their capabilities. Youth’s reaction, the more mature would in turn reply, is but proof of their naivety.
It’s often said (again by those approaching their three-score years and ten) that wisdom requires experience, exposure to the many facets of life; learning from your own (and others) failures as well as your and their successes, controlling one’s egoism (or lack of it) – and, above all, the need to set aside time for reflection.
Unfortunately for humanity there’s no such thing as instant wisdom.
There is no shortage of clever people in the world. There’s plenty of very clever educated young people. Never has there been a higher proportion of university graduates in OECD countries. Nor are there any signs of a population wide decline in IQ levels. But the current parlous state of the world amply demonstrates there’s a dearth of wisdom. A lack of cleverness is not the problem, it’s wisdom that’s lacking.
In today’s world of high speed, incessant 24/7 connectivity the younger one is the less time seems spent in solitude, that necessary prerequisite for reflection. Indeed, the practice of solitude is now sometimes regarded as a possible and worrying symptom
of a latent mental health problem. Once taking time out to reflect on things was the hallmark of the sage, guru or saint. Not so now.
A combination of factors work to produce this very modern situation; they include a lack of real-world experience, an education system increasingly focus on specialised and vocational training and high (and some would say, unrealistic) expectations as to what life ‘ought’ be like, what one is entitled to.
Combined, the above help explain some of the growth in the tunnel vision that blights modern affluent societies. Bookstores are full to overflowing with a never-ending stream of ‘How To’ look beautiful, attract a mate, change a relationship, become rich, (famous or important), tap your full potential (and/or creative depths)…books that confirm that this is the era of the individual.
At a macro level the general population’s impatience for instant ‘fix-it’ solutions together with ever-growing expectations of ‘progress-forever’ – and what governments must do by way of delivering all the lifestyle supports and services citizens believe are essential for their individual happiness – betrays the same belief that “I” (the individual) is the centre of the universe.
WISDOM vs CLEVERNESS
As with all broad, generalisations there are many exceptions to quick interpretive sketch above. So before proceeding down the path of examining the interplay between technology, generational differences, changing expectations etc in more detail it makes sense to have a brief ydiscussion as to what the relationship between cleverness and wisdom is – and isn’t.
Wisdom it’s argued, is the product of knowledge, experience, understanding, insight… and that now often derided skill of being able to apply ‘‘common sense”. The aim of wisdom is to arrive at productive solutions to problems, to find the best way forward out of confusion or conflict, to avoid repeating mistakes or adversely impinging on the rights of others.
Bringing all those skills together to form a cogent, balanced viewpoint requires time for reflection. That’s so because reflection also requires a disinterested (meaning an impartial) approach to thinking about issues, a stepping back and looking at the many facets of an issue rather than making a rush to judgement using one’s intuition (or interests, biases and/or prejudices) to instantly and rigidly opine what is good or bad, right or wrong, fair or unjust. The habit of making instant, reflexive (‘like’-‘dislike’) judgments is not the way to get to the heart of any matter.
The modern belief that everyone has the right to an opinion is often taken to mean that all opinions should carry equal weight – that any and every opinion is as good as another. That’s nonsense. Opinions are but inputs for sensible (and hopefully mature) discussion. All opinions should be tested against the facts, demonstrate understanding of the perspectives of others and be motivated by a desire to find compromises that are workable and fair to all – just not by a desire to ‘win’, to have everything your own way. This ‘win at all cost’ approach to settling difference of opinion is a major reason why modern, western democracies have become so divisive, so fractured in matters social and political.
We’re apt to forget we are all products of the times and circumstances into which we’re born. We are not the independently, freshly formed or independently minded creatures we imagine ourselves to be. The first thoughts that come to mind when we’re asked for an opinion are more the product of our environment than we care to admit.
Statistically speaking any human has an overwhelmingly better chance of being born Chinese or Indian than Australian. We’re less than 0.4% of the world’s population. We’re the outsiders. Yet it often ‘surprises’ us that others (including both the half of Australians who are immigrants or First Nations People), hold values and views different to our own – and we often get upset when they do.
That’s a natural proclivity we need to guard against if we are to get on with those who find us the strange ones. Hubris and wisdom are not good bedfellows. Age has taught many a firebrand that lesson.
The aged, usually, have more experience and usually care less about their own image than the young. (There are exceptions like Trump). But as a rough rule of thumb those who’s next step might be into the ‘afterlife’ have less reason to care about what others think of them and more reason to mull over the meaning of life -and how society might be better structured to provide a good life for those who’ll follow them. It’s no accident that history’s wise men and women, the reflective sages poets and hermits (from ancients such as Buddha through to moderns such as J D Salinger) is dotted with long beards and grey hair. The term ‘wise old man’ has a long history in nearly all cultures.
Youth, on the other hand, are understandably focused on finding out where they fit in the milieu in which they’re growing up. They try to find a place to ‘belong’ to a gang or brat group of acquaintances. They loathe being classified as a loser or outsider by their peers. Skibidi? No thanks.
Young dream about their heroes and heroines (footie, sport, entertainment role models …and Taylor Swift), coming to grips with the opposite sex – and rebelling against (or at best patiently coping with) those so-out-of-date-neanderthals, their parents.
Adolescents now live in a world of their own to a degree rare in history.
The term teenager didn’t come into common use in the West until after 1945, the end of WW2 in America. The word was coined to recognise this phenomenon of the young living in a different world, a world of their own. Since then the increasing speed of change in modern life has further mitigated against ‘reflection’ to make even recent events seem like ancient, primitive history of little relevance to young lives.
In the quest to keep up with ‘where it’s at’ attention spans have become shorter and shorter. Even the immensely famous of today usually turn out to have but short lifespans in the limelight (not quite Andy Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame, but we know what he meant – and he was right).
The young are always scanning the horizon to find what’s new, what’s the in- thing to be doing, to convince themselves they’re riding the crest of the wave, that they’re in the vanguard of change. Youth look forward to the future for fulfilment, not backwards to the varicose veined, primitive (ie. pre 2000) past.
Most young adults move on to survive the initial shock of taking flight from the family nest they become absorbed in the struggle to get a job, find a mate, start a family and put a roof over their head. Keeping all that going in middle age focuses adult attention on daily matters to such an extent that there’s little time left to devote to pondering esoteric questions such as ‘what does it all mean?’
Grans and pops are much loved members of the family; they’re sources of warmth, understanding, love, birthday and Christmas, Hanukkah and Eid presents for grandchildren, good weekend lunches and treats.
But has it ever struck you that today’s elders (in affluent society’s anyway) are often viewed in other more utilitarian and pragmatic ways as well? On the positive side (for example) oldies are valued as unpaid babysitters, de facto banks, cheap or no rent hostelries and/or the willing providers of free laundry services. On the negative side of the equation oldies can, however, can also be viewed as ‘inconveniences’ if they live too long, require financial support, become infirm or doolally.
Uncomfortable questions start being asked as the elderly age. Questions such as, ‘would they be better in an aged care home for their own and our good?’. ‘Why don’t they downsize from that unmanageably big place and give us a deposit so we can afford a place of our own ?’…or (unfortunately for those anxious to upgrade their lifestyle in the near rather than distant future ) the annoyance of realising oldies remain the arbiters of how their wealth will distributed after their departure. While they’re alive there’s always a risk oldies will ‘waste’ their money on frivolities …or change their wills. In our increasing materialistic societies, we tend to view the aged in material as well as familial terms.
The aged are also often seen as the last bastion of old and irrelevant ideas. Ideas that are to be politely patronised, but not taken seriously. As far as those under 30 or so are concerned those who lived their working lives before the internet are likely to fall into the category of ‘the irrelevant aged’, irrespective of their chronological age or mental acuity . The aged (say 70+) are rarely turned to for their wisdom.
THE AGE GAP
Never has the gap between the young and old been as wide.as it is in the anglo, western democracies of today. The young of today look forward to the future to the virtual exclusion of listening to the lessons of the past. That the proportion of Uni undergraduates taking any history major is at an all-time low is but one symptom of this widespread amnesia.
In historical terms this is an unusual situation.
Nearly all traditional societies honoured their elders. Most cultures, ancient and modern, have done so. Many still do.
Australia’s First Nations People certainly did. The collapse of such ‘respect’ in part explains the spread of youth delinquency and high rates of domestic violence that now so chronically characterise so many remote Indigenous communities.
In pre-literate societies word-of-mouth was the main way people past on their learning, beliefs and culture from one generation to the next, by way of stories, dance and ritual. Elders were the medium of learning. Even after the invention of writing, the printing press, radio and tv this respect for elders continued and was evident and reflected at all levels of society from family through tribe, community and government. Our stories, rituals and histories were -and still are-the glues that bond us together to create a sense of belonging and define what is good (and bad) in life, what makes for a meaningful life, a good life.
Imagine an old, bearded man of advanced years dressed in a simple tunic sitting on a stone plinth, outdoors on a sunny day, talking in a passionate but controlled way. In front is a small group of young people seated on the ground, faces uplifted, attentively listening to what is being said before asking questions to explore the ideas proffered. This is the classical picture of the young learning from the experience of their elders , a classical tableau of the passing of wisdom from generation to generation.
Contrast this scenario with another.
Here we see-(as recently filmed on the streets of Melbourne) – children as young as six or seven marching alongside their parents in a noisy, highly energised and emotionally charged demonstration, chanting words (catch-cries from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), words whose significance they cannot possibly understand; words and ideas that will nonetheless leave a deep imprint on their memories; memories that in turn will help shape how they see the world, who they regard as friend or foe and …what they instinctively feel to be right and wrong.
Both scenarios, although wildly different, demonstrate the importance of getting the balance of family, culture and history inputs versus vocational education and media/entertainment inputs just right.
WHAT CAN BE EXPECTED FROM MORE HIGHER EDUCATION?
A university education has long been regarded as the gold standard, the way out of poverty, the way to climb the ladder, the path to a better future for the individual and the Country.
Now that over 50% of year 12 students in Australia move on to enroll in Batchelor degrees before moving into the ‘workforce’ we’d expect to (1) at least see the beginnings of an improvement in social cohesiveness throughout the nation (2) the growth of a more mature political class capable of focusing on getting done the things that need to be done rather than one that forever and obsessively remains focused on chasing enough votes to win the next election. We’d also (3) expect to see less of a voter focus on consumerism of the ‘cake and circuses’ kind.
The history of Australia under our last seven Prime Ministers shows those hoped for green shoots of progress have been few and far between. Most people (I think) would agree we’ve lived through a period of missed opportunities and fluffing around, not a period of improvement or progress.
Part of the problem lies with modern universities. They’ve become big businesses that behave like big businesses. Degree standards have (arguably) been lowered to build student numbers to secure bigger revenue flows from overseas students. These are not topics to discuss here. Rather I’d like to focus on the far more fundamental question of what uni students study.
Over the past couple of decades big business and governments have encouraged a switch to vocational and technology courses. They’ve even tried to force (sorry, nudge) such a rebalance by cutting fees for such courses while increasing them for the art/humanities. Functional learning is the new dictat.
If successful, this push may well produce more health workers, mining and civil engineers, more computer and IT specialists, more scientists, more GPs, biologists and specialists of many necessary kinds – even more management executives, bankers and (god forbid) lawyers. TAFE, likewise, will hopefully, produce many more much needed tradies. And that’s well and good. The country needs people with all these skills.
But a question we should be asking ourselves is “will these highly educated specialists (working in their own silos of endeavour) necessarily prove more adroit than ordinary voters in contributing to the building a stronger democracy?” By that I mean better atfinding solutions to the many social, people and economic problems so evidently plaguing today’s western democracies.
Will more STEM graduates be the tide that lifts the standard of public discourse in, and the governance of, Australia?
Maybe a little, but almost certainly not a lot. Why would we expect a management graduate, banker, computer specialist or mining engineer to be any more insightful than the average Joe Blow in such matters?
Once upon a time a University education wasn’t only about learning functional or specialised technical skills. Its highest aim was more holistic. Students were encouraged to explore and think about matters involving many facets of human endeavour, the natural sciences, the classics, history and religion. That’s what the term ‘a well-rounded education’ meant. Studying the ‘humanities’ was integral to that process. Not so now.
The humanities are no longer valued nearly as highly as they once were.
The humanities, soft degrees, are increasingly seen as ‘nice to have luxuries’ for those that can afford to indulge in such niceties. Overseas students see little reason to study such western-centric subjects. Even amongst Australian students history degrees of any kind are in sharp decline. The number studying philosophy is very, very small. Ditto the number of students studying subjects like comparative religions or the literary canon. Yes, students can take short ‘orientation’ courses in most of these subjects, enough to get brief overview, but few study these subjects in depth. And that’s a pity.
If we neither learn from our own past or the past of other cultures, if we think our values are unquestionably superior to those of others without even trying to understand why others think and behave differently, we are demonstrating that we’re naive enough to believe we have nothing to learn from others.
Each successive generation in the West thinks it is the smartest to have ever trod the planet. Never so more than today because of the brilliance of modern technology. We discount the wisdom of those who went before and so underestimate the influence past thinkers, events and the ongoing fixed foibles of human nature continue to have on our daily lives.
We may not know much about Aristotle, Plato or Socrates, Descartes, Kant or Confucius …or the teachings of Buddha, Muhammad, Moses, the complexities of Hinduism or even that much more about Christ and the culture he lived in. We know even less about how the religions and cultural movements such ‘greats’ spawned have evolved over time to impact on the world we live in today. Nor do we understand much about the more equally important non-religious aspects of our collective past (political, economic, social). We ignore these lessons at our peril. The wise learn from history, the blind ignore it…the stupid stumble onwards unaware of its existence.
One of the reasons learned professors in universities were afforded ‘tenure’ (permanent employment) was to ensure they had the security, the time to think and the freedom to say what they wanted to say. This seems a sensible approach to the pursuit of wisdom. One that followed a formula similar to that followed by the great sages. In the coming age of AI we can leave cleverness and speed to the machines, what we’ll need is the wisdom to control those machines in ways that advance humanity ’s interest.
WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM OUR POLITICAL CLASS
Lawyers have always been heavily represented in our Parliaments. Indeed, they’ve been the most numerous cohort up ‘till recently. And that sort of made sense. As Parliaments are the law makers it seems natural those from a legal background would dominate – and that’s OK – as long as they’re complimented by other parliamentarians who’ve had careers and real-world experience. And that used to be the way it was for a long time, times when governments played a much smaller, and simpler, role in our lives than they do today.
Over the past couple of decades voters have focused on demanding our Parliaments become more representative in gender and racial terms. While this battle for ‘representation’ has occupied centre stage another change in the composition of our parliaments has gone largely unnoticed.
It might surprise you to know that lawyers are no longer the most numerous cohort in Federal Parliament. They now rank second. The largest group (at the Commonwealth level) is comprised of people who started their careers soon after finishing their education, going straight into political parties (or unions) aa as baby staffers, people who have worked their way up over time to become researchers, assistants and advisors to eventually become candidates at election times – or holders of key positions as lobbyists, consultants or executives in party ‘friendly’ organisations .These people are professional politicians .
As their career development depends on their Party’s electoral success they work hard to beat the competition by whatever means necessary. It’s an all-absorbing game . They live within a self -referencing, bubble. They socialise together, date, party and often marry within their group. They strategise together, learn how to spin their policy, stories to appeal to voters and how to soften tough or bad news to avoid frightening the horses.
Above all they become expert at playing the blame game, claiming credit for any success and blaming others for any failure. They’re a class of Teflon people who are reluctant to take responsibility for anything except “success”. Their priority is to win and hold power. Serving the national interest is a secondary, often delayed goal.
If you think this is an overly negative picture of our political class please consider the fact that a recent PM secretly took over the portfolio of five ministries without informing those Ministers, his cabinet colleagues. Read their biographies and you’ll find they talk about themselves and their opponents rather than their policies.
If you can’t be bothered to do that just look at the never-ending reverberations of the Higgins-Lerhmann affair and what it revealed about our political class.
Intrigues, plots and counterplots, weaknesses at every level of the system from security at Parliament to the grand ambitions and immaturity of the junior staffers involved, the weaponisation of allegations to damage a Government to make it appear even more anti-women, the ruining of the reputation of a cabinet minister and a blameless career staffer, an in-camera settlement of $2.4million to Ms Higgins, a series of Court proceedings including a failed rape trial and an independent judicial review of that trial, and multiple defamation cases .
Justice Lee’s civil case findings revealed deplorable standards within the mass media that showed anything goes when it comes to winning a juicy story, that both Lerhmann and Higgins had lied …in short that all involved had behaved badly. Think of all the time, effort and public money that has been wasted here and in other similar ‘relationship ‘cases such as the Tudge-Miller ‘bullying’ affair, the Maguire-Berejiklian ‘scandal’ and the Porter ‘alleged’ historical-rape story.
All these incidents (and more) occurred in or after 2019. Our ruling class seems overly occupied with matters personal than matters of national importance.
Also reflect on the fact our talking class seems incapable of getting things done, in making things work in the real world, on ground, where most of us live. Defence ? A shambles. NDIS – out of control. Aged care – too little too late. Closing the Gap – a shame. Energy – a rush to chaos. Housing – enough said. Controlling inflation – ha, ha.
If our political class becomes ever more dominated by professional apparatchiks, vote-brokers, one upmanship game players, risk avoiders, ideological romantics and faction fighters the prospects for our democracy are bleak.
If our Parliaments further devolve into the Towers of Babel they’re becoming, we can only expect to see the rise of populism of the type now threatening America.
It would be unfair, however, to lay all the blame at the feet of our political class.
THE ACCELERANTS OF DIVISION-THE ROLE OFMASS AND SOCIAL MEDIA
Mass media is a hungry beast. Members of its several constituent tribes are always on the hunt to bring home the biggest stories to feed their outlets. In part this competition is healthy because it keeps newspapers and TV networks on their toes. But the hunt becomes frenetic the consequences can be dire.
In the attempt to win and retain as many eyeballs as possible, (every media player is always on the search for the new, the most sensational or scandalous, the most emotionally arousing or scary story…the highest prize being the ‘hot exclusive’ that will maximise their audience share on the day.
Speed is necessary to win this race and speed means there’s often little time or interest in collecting details relevant to working out what’s going on yet alone to developing or presenting an objective understanding of what the news means. Shallowness in coverage is often the result. The headline (man bites dog) is much more interesting than any investigation of why this happened.
What’s more, different corporations/mastheads take different slants. Each interpret the news to reflect its own staff/proprietorial biases.
The tabloids are less serious about matters political and will ‘shark-in’ on any trace of fresh blood in the water – be it juicy gossip, a sex scandal, human tragedy, anything sensational. Each player presents the news of the day through differently tinted glasses.
Editors, journalists, opinion writers, influencers, stars and expert guests) act as overt advocates for one side of politics or the other, one world view or another. By doing so they help spread and consolidate divisions within the community.
There are very few objective journalists of any weight left working in the mass media. There are very few news programmes of any weight aired on TV. Partisanship is rampant.
Some will argue such competition is a good and healthy thing for democracy. That would be the case if competition expressed itself in attempts to present informed,
respectful discussion and debate whose goals were to find the truth and/or explore ways of bringing people together. Unfortunately that’s not the way of the mass media conducts itself, not the product it sells. If it did the media’s viewer bases would shrink, their business model buckle. Conflict is newsworthy. Harmony is boring.
The media knows the public prefers a mass media based on the sports model of politics. A model where you pick a side, lionise its star players,boo and belittle the opposition, a model where you unload your pent up emotion on the enemy – hoping to vanquish the other side. Without the excitement, the arousal, the belonging – and the fan’s vicarious involvement in the fight on the field -boredom sets in very quickly. It’s a formula the media understands and follows.
The arrival of social media has not only provided the mass media with stiff competition, it’s acted like an amphetamine to speed everything up while dumbing everything down.
None of this is healthy for any democracy. It encourages division, rigidity and disrespect via belittlement. It’s the kind of mob-think that led to storming of the US Capitol in 2020. Its persistence is likely to see the election of Trump as US President for a second time. It may be a clever way to engage in politics but it falls far, far short of being a wise way .
IN CONCLUSION
There are plenty of clever people in the country-but too few that are blessed with both wisdom and bravery. Our democracy needs more of the latter in leadership positions in education, the media and our parliaments. And the only way that’s going to happen is if we, as citizens and voters insist it happens.
How ?
As citizens we can think in greater depth about the issues confronting the nation and stop judging everything in terms of how it immediately impacts our hip pocket nerve or fits in with our personal preferences and prejudices. We have to remind ourselves that as citizens we have obligations as well as rights, that we are more than consumers of government services, that we have an obligation to consider what others want as well as what we’d like. In other words, we voters need to become wiser in the way we vot.
As voters we need take more care in scrutinising the people we vote for, become less prone to vote for those who promise to deliver what we want to hear (the salesmen and spruikers) and more supportive of those who put the nation’s long-term interest first (the statesmen/stateswomen). We can use our votes to pressure our political class to put the nation’s needs ahead of their party’s electoral prospects – and their own career development. We don’t have to keep forever choosing between the Tweedledum or Tweedledee parties to govern us. If neither is fit for purpose we should use our votes to retire them.
As taxpayers we have to demand transparency and accountability from those we appoint (and finance by way of taxes and charges) to spend our monies, sensibly and productively. We have every right to know how well our governments are performing.
Government projects should not be above scrutiny. When they are, it often turns out that huge amounts of money have been wasted and/or that the products or services delivered are not up to standard.
It would be tedious to list specific examples of this phenomenon here because they’re so visible, frequent and widespread – if you’re not already aware of the problem I’d beating a skinless drum anyway. So I’ll put it pointedly – voters have to demand our political class (and our civil servants) develop the management skills, and the will, to effectively manage the mammoth projects that now so deeply impact on our standard of living. They have to be reminded that while they manage the Country, we ordinary people are its shareholders. It’s their job to make the Country better for us, not the other way round.
None of the above recommendations can, or will work, if a majority of voters are indolent or only superficially engaged in matters politic. There’s an old adage that in a democracy “a people get the government they deserve”. Some regard this saying as an example of wisdom. Even if you don’t agree, it’s hard to refute the proposition that “a people get the governments they vote for”.
Over to you.