"The citizen can bring our political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive and accountable, and keep them honest.
No one else can.
" -- John Gardner There are two main factors in politics: the politicians and the people.
To understand what is right and, more importantly, what is wrong with politics these two areas must be addressed.
To ensure politicians are answerable they must be properly elected by the people.
When they make a decision, it must be made on behalf of those that have chosen them as their representative.
To ensure politicians are effective, they themselves must be exactly the right type of candidate.
They should be in the job for everyone but themselves.
By reforming both the means by which politicians are selected and the process by which they are elected, Scotland can look forward to a bright political future.
"Politics would be a helluva good business if it weren't for the goddamned people.
" -- Richard M.
Nixon Ask anybody what they think of a politician and the answer will be the same.
Fairly or unfairly, the MPs expenses scandal at Westminster has had an impact on the public's opinion of politicians like nothing before.
The expenses scandal showed just how out of touch with the public politicians have become.
The actions of senior politicians were in stark contrast to their words.
Promising comprehensive reform, they instead ousted a slightly old-fashioned speaker and decreed that Westminster expenses would be externally regulated.
While the Holyrood expenses system is actually regarded as being very efficient, political accountability in Scotland comes from Westminster as well and so the lessons to be learned there are just as vital.
So how to tackle the problem of out of touch politicians? To begin with, a fresh input of politicians is essential.
Politicians are elected as a representation of public opinion.
As opinions change with time, so should MPs.
Local party members only should be allowed to approve the candidate(s)(in the case of Scottish Parliament) that will stand at election time.
The candidate will come from a list of those wishing to stand and the local party members will pick who they feel is best for the community.
Being the standing MP/MSP does not guarantee that you will stand automatically as a candidate next time round.
The incumbent politician will be judged by the local party members on whether he/she has delivered promises and worked to a satisfactory level.
If this were to happen at the next election, those heavily involved in the expenses scandal who still wish to stand would probably not get another chance.
Prospective candidates would be assessed on a variety of factors.
For instance, those who have had worthwhile experience in another job that may improve their ability to work as a politician will be looked upon favourably as opposed to those with impressive degrees.
Vince Cable is highly respected for his foresight in relation to the economy.
His CV includes a stint as Chief Economist at Shell.
It is easy to say that more young people should be involved in politics, but a bit of experience goes a long way in the eyes of the electorate.
This selection process would also put to an end the increasing trend of 'career politicians' who step out of education in to the lower rungs of the political system, seeking to work their way up.
How can someone whose only experience of international politics is from a textbook make an informed decision on an issue the size of, for example, the Iraq War? Lastly, people want their politicians to have strong principles and morals.
This does not include seeing them comment on topics favoured by the popular media, using tragic events as a means of political point-scoring and becoming involved in reality TV.
Furthermore, being a politician is a job.
Does a doctor or a lawyer have another job? Those who have a second job cannot be expected to perform at a level that justifies their salary as a politician.
None of these ideas are revolutionary (that comes in the next chapter), just common sense.
I believe these changes would benefit a political system that has actually made some impressive strides in recent years.
With a new system of selection in place and by taking on some simple advice, politicians can return to the position of high public standing that they once held.
"Turnout is low - there is something sick in the heart of our politics.
" -- Paddy Ashdown If the past is a sign of things to come the prospects don't look encouraging for a high turnout in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election.
Since 1987, turnout in Scotland has been consistently lower than that of the UK as a whole in general elections.
2001 was a particularly telling year with Scottish turnout at an alarming 58.
2%, the lowest since 1918 when many servicemen were still fighting in the war.
The five UK constituencies with the lowest turnout in 2001, even more worryingly, all came from Glasgow.
However, the turnout figures for the Scottish Parliament do not provide good reading either.
Introduced in 1999, the Scottish Parliament was meant to provide the Scottish people with their own representatives and there was a lot of optimism about this new parliament.
Yet turnout was just 58.
16%.
In 2003 this fell, embarrassingly and depressingly, to below 50% and there was only a slight increase in the most recent elections in 2007.
It is frustrating that we have a new Parliament that is being elected by less than half the electorate and this must be tackled.
When the idea of a Scottish Parliament was devised those behind it were clearly thinking of a different electoral system and so Proportional Representation was chosen.
However, as with any electoral system, be it First Past the Post or otherwise, there are numerous pros and cons.
But there is a way to better representation, to better politics, without changing the system.
For the following reasons, I honestly believe in the value of compulsory voting.
Voting is a right and with right comes responsibility.
If you've got the right to vote, you've got the responsibility to use that power.
Compulsory voting would show the public that politicians trust them to make an informed decision and would not need to revert to protest voting.
Incidentally, the most damaging of all protest votes, the 'no-vote', would disappear completely.
Established countries such as Australia and Belgium both use the system and report turnout of over 90%.
Compulsory voting would get politicians being more open about the big issues.
In return for their vote, the electorate will want concrete answers on the tough issues.
Those in Glasgow who feel their vote serves no purpose will become increasingly aware that the things in life that seem as though they cannot be changed, can actually be influenced.
A final benefit of this system would be that of its impact on the electorate.
At present, it appears the majority of people are apolitical.
From personal experience I know almost nobody my age, 17 and able to vote next year, who knows the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the country's third party.
If people know that they are going to be voting (non-attendees receive a fine and possible imprisonment if they refuse to pay their fines - as punishment for failing to pay rather than not voting) they will almost certainly pick up some interest in politics.
And for those who really disagree or believe compulsory voting is undemocratic, there is always the 'none of the above' option.
One of the biggest reasons for the decrease in turnout has been a loss of faith in politicians.
Compulsory voting allows voters to register dissatisfaction with those standing for election, as opposed to the democratic process itself.
Compulsory voting would be the perfect opportunity for this SNP government to be brave and prove Scotland's independent credentials.
Only a strong country, financially and morally, can make great changes.
In the early 20th century, the British government took some brave steps towards improving the country, giving men and women over a certain age the right to vote.
Compulsory voting opens up the vote to the electorate in a similar way to what happened in 1928, which made politicians more accountable than ever.
As a new decade begins, I strongly believe the Scottish government can take another brave step towards improving the country and make politicians even more accountable.
"Ideas are great arrows, but there has to be a bow.
And politics is the bow of idealism.
" -- Bill Moyers By making changes to the processes of selection and election, a path can be paved to a better political future for Scotland.
Both changes would make politicians more answerable and effective, make the public more involved with the decisions that affect their lives and elevate politics beyond personality and point scoring.
So I hand it over to you, politicians.
After all, you can't ask the architect to build the house.
No one else can.
" -- John Gardner There are two main factors in politics: the politicians and the people.
To understand what is right and, more importantly, what is wrong with politics these two areas must be addressed.
To ensure politicians are answerable they must be properly elected by the people.
When they make a decision, it must be made on behalf of those that have chosen them as their representative.
To ensure politicians are effective, they themselves must be exactly the right type of candidate.
They should be in the job for everyone but themselves.
By reforming both the means by which politicians are selected and the process by which they are elected, Scotland can look forward to a bright political future.
"Politics would be a helluva good business if it weren't for the goddamned people.
" -- Richard M.
Nixon Ask anybody what they think of a politician and the answer will be the same.
Fairly or unfairly, the MPs expenses scandal at Westminster has had an impact on the public's opinion of politicians like nothing before.
The expenses scandal showed just how out of touch with the public politicians have become.
The actions of senior politicians were in stark contrast to their words.
Promising comprehensive reform, they instead ousted a slightly old-fashioned speaker and decreed that Westminster expenses would be externally regulated.
While the Holyrood expenses system is actually regarded as being very efficient, political accountability in Scotland comes from Westminster as well and so the lessons to be learned there are just as vital.
So how to tackle the problem of out of touch politicians? To begin with, a fresh input of politicians is essential.
Politicians are elected as a representation of public opinion.
As opinions change with time, so should MPs.
Local party members only should be allowed to approve the candidate(s)(in the case of Scottish Parliament) that will stand at election time.
The candidate will come from a list of those wishing to stand and the local party members will pick who they feel is best for the community.
Being the standing MP/MSP does not guarantee that you will stand automatically as a candidate next time round.
The incumbent politician will be judged by the local party members on whether he/she has delivered promises and worked to a satisfactory level.
If this were to happen at the next election, those heavily involved in the expenses scandal who still wish to stand would probably not get another chance.
Prospective candidates would be assessed on a variety of factors.
For instance, those who have had worthwhile experience in another job that may improve their ability to work as a politician will be looked upon favourably as opposed to those with impressive degrees.
Vince Cable is highly respected for his foresight in relation to the economy.
His CV includes a stint as Chief Economist at Shell.
It is easy to say that more young people should be involved in politics, but a bit of experience goes a long way in the eyes of the electorate.
This selection process would also put to an end the increasing trend of 'career politicians' who step out of education in to the lower rungs of the political system, seeking to work their way up.
How can someone whose only experience of international politics is from a textbook make an informed decision on an issue the size of, for example, the Iraq War? Lastly, people want their politicians to have strong principles and morals.
This does not include seeing them comment on topics favoured by the popular media, using tragic events as a means of political point-scoring and becoming involved in reality TV.
Furthermore, being a politician is a job.
Does a doctor or a lawyer have another job? Those who have a second job cannot be expected to perform at a level that justifies their salary as a politician.
None of these ideas are revolutionary (that comes in the next chapter), just common sense.
I believe these changes would benefit a political system that has actually made some impressive strides in recent years.
With a new system of selection in place and by taking on some simple advice, politicians can return to the position of high public standing that they once held.
"Turnout is low - there is something sick in the heart of our politics.
" -- Paddy Ashdown If the past is a sign of things to come the prospects don't look encouraging for a high turnout in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election.
Since 1987, turnout in Scotland has been consistently lower than that of the UK as a whole in general elections.
2001 was a particularly telling year with Scottish turnout at an alarming 58.
2%, the lowest since 1918 when many servicemen were still fighting in the war.
The five UK constituencies with the lowest turnout in 2001, even more worryingly, all came from Glasgow.
However, the turnout figures for the Scottish Parliament do not provide good reading either.
Introduced in 1999, the Scottish Parliament was meant to provide the Scottish people with their own representatives and there was a lot of optimism about this new parliament.
Yet turnout was just 58.
16%.
In 2003 this fell, embarrassingly and depressingly, to below 50% and there was only a slight increase in the most recent elections in 2007.
It is frustrating that we have a new Parliament that is being elected by less than half the electorate and this must be tackled.
When the idea of a Scottish Parliament was devised those behind it were clearly thinking of a different electoral system and so Proportional Representation was chosen.
However, as with any electoral system, be it First Past the Post or otherwise, there are numerous pros and cons.
But there is a way to better representation, to better politics, without changing the system.
For the following reasons, I honestly believe in the value of compulsory voting.
Voting is a right and with right comes responsibility.
If you've got the right to vote, you've got the responsibility to use that power.
Compulsory voting would show the public that politicians trust them to make an informed decision and would not need to revert to protest voting.
Incidentally, the most damaging of all protest votes, the 'no-vote', would disappear completely.
Established countries such as Australia and Belgium both use the system and report turnout of over 90%.
Compulsory voting would get politicians being more open about the big issues.
In return for their vote, the electorate will want concrete answers on the tough issues.
Those in Glasgow who feel their vote serves no purpose will become increasingly aware that the things in life that seem as though they cannot be changed, can actually be influenced.
A final benefit of this system would be that of its impact on the electorate.
At present, it appears the majority of people are apolitical.
From personal experience I know almost nobody my age, 17 and able to vote next year, who knows the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the country's third party.
If people know that they are going to be voting (non-attendees receive a fine and possible imprisonment if they refuse to pay their fines - as punishment for failing to pay rather than not voting) they will almost certainly pick up some interest in politics.
And for those who really disagree or believe compulsory voting is undemocratic, there is always the 'none of the above' option.
One of the biggest reasons for the decrease in turnout has been a loss of faith in politicians.
Compulsory voting allows voters to register dissatisfaction with those standing for election, as opposed to the democratic process itself.
Compulsory voting would be the perfect opportunity for this SNP government to be brave and prove Scotland's independent credentials.
Only a strong country, financially and morally, can make great changes.
In the early 20th century, the British government took some brave steps towards improving the country, giving men and women over a certain age the right to vote.
Compulsory voting opens up the vote to the electorate in a similar way to what happened in 1928, which made politicians more accountable than ever.
As a new decade begins, I strongly believe the Scottish government can take another brave step towards improving the country and make politicians even more accountable.
"Ideas are great arrows, but there has to be a bow.
And politics is the bow of idealism.
" -- Bill Moyers By making changes to the processes of selection and election, a path can be paved to a better political future for Scotland.
Both changes would make politicians more answerable and effective, make the public more involved with the decisions that affect their lives and elevate politics beyond personality and point scoring.
So I hand it over to you, politicians.
After all, you can't ask the architect to build the house.
SHARE
