The beginning of a new year brings new beginnings for governments. In Canada the House of Commons returns from a holiday break. In 2011 the United States sets a new Congress and an altered Senate to work.
This is a good time to consider the character of the men and women who are elected to public office, at any level. Just as the Ark of the Covenant held the stone tablets with the laws for God’s people, so the arc of the government identifies how people elected to public office usually live out their mandate. It is a four-step process.
The first step is the recognition of the candidate’s principles. Principles can be neutral, positive or negative, but whatever the candidate believes in ought to guide and govern whatever they do from the point of seeking and accepting the role of a candidate.
The second step is the presentation of the candidate’s promises of what they will do if nominated or elected. Promises should come from the candidate’s principles but at times the temptation cannot be resisted to make promises the candidate knows they cannot keep, which immediately undermines their declared principle of honesty. The arc continues.
The third step is being elected, which moves the candidate from principles through promises into power. It does not matter if the candidate’s new title is Board Member, Councillor, Mayor, Member of Parliament, Representative, Senator or President. With every elected office comes some level and form of power and privilege. This is the apotheosis in the arc of the government. To the elected man or woman acquiring and exercising power usually becomes addictive. Power becomes something to be retained and, if possible, increased, which leads to the final unfortunate step in this arc.
The final resting place of the elected person’s principles and promises is in the morass called pragmatism. Whatever undergirding principles guided the candidate to make their promises to get elected are now trumped by pragmatism. Self-serving pragmatism becomes the only principle and promise that will now be employed to ensure that power is maintained and hopefully enlarged.
Pragmatism is used to excuse the violation of principles and the breaking of promises. Rare indeed is the elected man or woman who will relinquish their power for the sake of their principles and promises.
The arc of the government explains why elected persons rate so low in any poll or survey on trust.
Pragmatism often tramples the truth. Perhaps any oath of office should include a declaration to be faithful to all of the principles and promises which brought the candidate to power. It might make for slightly better government, at every level.
Perhaps.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I love this, because people so often use pragmatism as an excuse to compromise — and not the right kind of compromise, which brings equally good plans into balance — but to go halfway on ideals, and to put honor on a shelf in favor of expedience.
I hadn’t thought of it this way. It makes a ton of sense.
Nice. But remember, all too often the Oaths of Office politicians swear (if any) are all too often ignored or not even comprehended… Look at the recent business with objections to reading aloud the Constitution before Congress… The very document they’re swearing to preserve and defend.