When weakness trumps strength

- Why most politicians are not fit for purpose.

In their careers, most people expect to advance or be positioned in relation to their knowledge, skills and experience: ability.

There then exists those who feel their advancement should not be subject to such criteria. To achieve advancement, less than professional methods need to be employed - sub-consciously or not - or perhaps just having the drive to advance as a goal in itself, as divorced from all else.

The more professional amongst us tend not to want to engage with such practices, or even be involved in such environments, so the less professional, or weaker: those that just have empty drive, are left a clear path through. On occasion, when no such clear path manifests, those less than professional ones amongst us employ methods to create such paths.

It is no accident that understandings of being 'political' tend to be negative, with Machiavellian undertones.

Politics tends to attract those seeking power for its own sake in equal measure as those who genuinley mean well. If, say, half of those well intentioned actually have the wherewithal to achieve balanced benefits, then that is only a quarter overall.

Also, at a local level, if a councillor is, for example, a teacher or shopowner then that is fine; genuine members of the community. But, once councillors have a portfolio - responsibility for finance, housing, or regeneration, amongst others - does that same background mean they are necessarily experienced and/ or qualified to make strategic decisions affecting many people in the area they represent?

The actions of many politicians are akin to those of a typical child: short term, immediate effect, attention seeking. Rarely the notion of delaying an experience to enhance it, for example, if a child has a sweet and has been told they can have it, they are unlikely to leave it until after an unpleasant task for them such as bath-time, homework or bed-time.