This does not mean that we cannot identify honest politicians when we see them. Immanuel Kant described two types of politicians. It is a label that easily applies to all the types of dishonest politicians described above. An honest politician is someone who regards politics as a tool for achieving the common good.
He is not naive, and knows that patience, compromise, and a policy of small steps are often needed. Yet in pursuing partial goals he will not lose sight of higher objectives. An honest politician, in short, pursues a pragmatism built on principles, on the courage to say unpleasant things, but always with a constructive attitude.
Indeed, irresponsible criticism — the eagerness to expose and publicize a problem, unmatched by the willingness to propose feasible solutions — is perhaps the most common form of dishonesty in politics. This is why actual governance is so often the best test of political honesty.
In democratic countries, if politicians who are critical of others while in opposition prove to be ineffective when in government, voters can — and often do — punish their dishonesty at the ballot box.
The toughest test of an honest politician comes when he or she must defend ideas that are unpopular but right. Not everyone passes such a test, particularly when elections are approaching. However, only the dishonest politician equates politics exclusively with y popularity.
At the same time, a moral politician never succeeds single-handedly in ensuring the common good. President Michael Dimock explains why. About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions.
It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts. Newsletters Donate My Account. Or can we find ways to restore trust in our political institutions? Our study suggests that greater transparency can make a difference. In this second scenario, with greater transparency, the correlation between the scale of politicians reneging on promises and their efforts to be selected disappears. This suggests that in order to improve trust, we need more robust fact checking, transparency and public scrutiny.
But even with the greatest possible transparency, a real world problem remains. Would a staunch Conservative voter, for example, knowing that the party candidate may not be trustworthy, vote for a Labour policy platform of a more honest candidate, and vice versa? If the political platforms of the major parties are highly polarised, it is unlikely that dishonesty — even if transparent — would be severely punished by voting behaviour in elections.
To regain trust in political leaders, the question then arises of whether or not campaign promises can be made binding. If we want more honesty from candidates, we need to be better at accepting their explanations for success and failure, much as we would do if we were assessing our own lives. We need to accept our leaders as imperfect human beings.
Not every statement, decision, and policy will be perfect. Perhaps the leader who has made and learned from mistakes will be more effective than one who has never faced such challenges. Our presidential candidates appear to agree on very little except that the coming election is important.
That the campaign has focused less on substantive policy and has devolved into jousting about differing narratives demeans the candidates and undermines our capacity to respond to a host of internal and external challenges. It may be comforting to attribute the dishonesty morass to others.
0コメント