The political career

"He doesn't bite. He just wants to play," dog owners tend to state about their tail-wagging, four-legged best friends.

Using a similar statement, I like to start my characterisation of contemporary politicians:

"They have no plans to make politics; They only want to advance their careers.”

So, don't worry, things are not as bad as they seem. Despite all thunderous speeches, no harm is to be expected. The political message is anyway crafted just to please the majority of potential voters. Successfully advancing on the career path is the sole criterion.

But a caveat should be expressed here: what is said applies only to organisations in which it is worthwhile, in which there is an attractive career to follow - and the political programme is anyway determined more by opinion polls than by one's own convictions. On the extreme right and left of the political spectrum, things usually look different. Actors here still pursue their conviction, follow their mission - at least at the beginning.

Will this process bless us with the political elite, which we believe we need? Probably not.

Let us postpone for a moment the question of whether we really need a "political elite". But rather contemplate why don't we get it in this way either?

Well, the instinctive, quickly responding jungle fighter is not the same as the far-sighted leader at his lonely hill top. To be able to instantaneously assess every suspicious rustling in the twilight of the undergrowth, in which every newbie begins his or her career, to recognize if a faint shadow hints at a threat, to form tactical alliances for an appropriate time span, in short: survival skills, are essential for the ascent. Otherwise the ambitious newcomer will not survive the first few days in the back rooms of endlessly stretching committee meetings. But do these skills also qualify to lead a government agency, a state?

Of course, a survival of the fittest, a selection most capable is conducted here. Those who win, are not simply dummies - well, in general not. But it is a special selection. Like any other ascent within a hierarchy the traditional political career in this country as in others on its "long march" from the fresh novice to the powerful party leader has to climb through different stages. It goes without saying that the skills required of the candidates vary from level to level. The selection process needs to begin anew at each level, perhaps occasionally resulting in no suitable candidate being available.

Snakes and other reptiles, as well as insects, skin themselves when they want to grow. This is what careerists do in corporate hierarchies. That's what is done in the course of a party career too. They simply morph into a new role, sometimes into a new identity, change their habits, occasionally their environment, dump their old contacts and replace them by new ones. They "acquire" the required optimal skill set for this role. It's all just a question of engineering, of management.

Hmmm, does it work like that? Is it that simple? There is one more thing. At some stage you also have to think about how you will be viewed by the public. In spite of all your qualifications, you have to have to appear authentic. For that you have to be able to show some cleverly designed peculiarities, forgivable weaknesses and personal traits, maybe even a certain folkloric heritage. Because later the people will finally also be the electorate.

But the hard work of the loyal party members at the base must also be rewarded too. Otherwise in the end there might not be any sedan bearers for the powerful. Every pyramid needs its base. So, there are also alternative ways to the top - maybe even without going through 7 moults.

But that's what it's all about, the way up, which many equate with the way to power, power over others.

This machinery has been working like this for a long time. It has already produced entire generations of politicians, including those whose lack of foresight we deplore so much, whose party bickering gets on our nerves, whom we do not trust to guide us safely through the perils that lie ahead of us on the uncertain path to the future.

So if we want a new, a completely different political elite, it seems that it must be created by other mechanisms, perhaps without a classical career.
But is this political elite really necessary? In the digital age, is the professional politician, who is capable of everything, but of nothing else 😊, actually still up to date?

My answer here is a clear no.

Politics is too important to be left to politicians, who - see above - do not want to "bite" at all. We obviously need a completely different system to come to political decisions, to regulate, to govern.

We do not have this system today. Most probably we do have consensus on that. I do not know any consolidated and accepted theories on how it should look like. In the absence of any reliable third party to take the burden for us, inconveniently we have to think ourselves, to stepwise approach the solution ourselves - preferably deductively, top-down.

My thesis is: Less humans - more program, according to the well-known graffito "No power for nobody".

Party programs have been around for a long time. Every party has one. Few voters have ever read one or even built their election decisions on it. In most cases, they are rather vague and kept in a general diction so as not to unnecessarily restrict the political scope of the actors involved. Accordingly, they seldom provide decisive assistance in concrete decision-making cases.

The word "programme" generally has at least two meanings: One is the party program in question. In the context of computers of all kinds it is equated with a deterministic calculation prescription. What would it be like if we merge both variants? I have already thought about this elsewhere. I don't want to repeat them here. Just this much can be said: In the end and in the long run I expect algorithms to be the better politicians.

Will politicians then become jobless? No, they become programmers - party programmers. Perhaps then we will no longer need professional politicians, or at least not that many. Part-time or after-work politicians can also participate in the drafting, voting and extensive testing of the rules. The path to more direct democracy, which delvers rather dysfunctional results when done via popular petitions and similar actions – maybe except in Switzerland (more on this here @ "5. Time for more direct democracy?") - is thus paved by a regulated participation in the body of rules with the help of contemporary electronic communication.

A permanent party conference like a Facebook chat? Yes, why not? Code is law – the Cypher Punk movement has known that for long already.