A quick word on the anomaly that is the politics profession

Politics is anomalous in terms of modern professions. Today most professionals — especially those whose work has a direct bearing on the well-being of the public — have been corralled towards ascribing to industry-wide codes of ethics and been placed under the stewardship of industry bodies (often at the behest of politicians) that uphold ethical behaviour and enforce professional conduct.
But the modern politician, despite being at the centre of innumerable scandal and failures of ethics, continues to coast along under the radar, without being subjected to demands that better behaviour and higher standards be codified into the profession. Yes, once in public office, politicians are subject to whatever oaths apply, however, a significant amount of the activities undertaken by politicians occurs outside of office and almost always these activities are directed towards attaining office. It is thus strange that these activities are deemed “private” and outside the purview of independent scrutiny, when they have a direct bearing on how and whether a politician will behave ethically and operate at the requisite standard of professionalism once in office.
Where is the King III or the Sarbanes-Oxley for politicians?
Nowhere, that’s where. It occurred to me the other day that few modern professions, save for those deemed illegal, like sex work, have escaped scrutiny in this way. I am curious as to why. What makes the career of a politician special enough to enjoy this privilege? I must admit. I’m drawing blanks, and that’s because no justifiable reason exists for this anomaly. That the anomaly exists points to a critical flaw in how democracy has been conceptualised, as the responsibility for making the laws that govern societies is delegated primarily to a group of people in whose interest it is not to scrutinise and regulate their own collective behaviour. And it’s a shame. This democracy thing sounds really nice on paper otherwise.
Tagged , ,

One thought on “A quick word on the anomaly that is the politics profession

  1. Neil says:

    Isn’t there a role for a free press to undertake such scrutiny of politicians? But often when we talk of a free press, we assume it must be free from state interference. The problem, in my opinion, those of us who live in democracies now face is that unfettered media markets can lead to dominance by one media group or individual, who may have either political ambitions or affiliations or may court the politicians to advance socially.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: