Should Politicians Be Licensed?
Dr. Sam Goldstein (see linked video) has launched a campaign to advocate for the licensing of politicians. Is this a good idea?
What are the Pros and Cons of Licensing Politicians?
The following is my cursory assessment of this question using the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Analysis method. The ideas expressed are solely my own. They are based on my personal experience as someone who has voted since the 1970s, been an election candidate on 9 occasions, and a longtime student of Economics and Information Technologies.
I am particularly interested in the interplay between Economic variables and the dynamics of politics, public policy creation & enforcement, and the affect that excessive governments growth has had on Canada’s national prosperity and global reputation.
Strengths:
_ Licensing Standards. Our governments have systematically established licensing programs for the alleged purpose of establishing standards of excellence in those trades and professions to increase public trust and confidence in them.
If the chosen licensing standards for politicians were to include proof of successful training in key subject areas (examples mentioned by Goldstein: Economics, Political Science), then this could lead to a more-knowledgeable and better-prepared selection of election candidates from which to choose during elections at the local and/or riding level.
It logically follows that this would also ensure higher caliber of federal Members of Parliament (MPs), Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs) and municipal Councillors. In theory, these “certified” politicians could be expected to function as better decision-makers where public policy and fiscal accountability are concerned.
_ Background Checks: Some employers scrutinize the personal and work histories of job candidates for positions that require a high degree of competence and trustworthiness. Should this also apply to politicians? Might this reduce the number corruptible people who enter politics?
_ Personality and Vocation testing: Years ago, I arranged for my eldest daughter to undergo a sophisticated battery of tests ($2000 price in 1995) to help her identify the kind of work for which she was best suited after graduating high school. This same battery of tests were commonly used in corporations for key positions in order to identify potential performance strengths and liabilities of candidates who were under consideration for those jobs. Is this form of testing also worth considering for political licensing?
Weaknesses:
__ Who Decides? Dr. Goldstein suggested academic topics like Economics and Political Science as suitable, but are there other knowledge domains that may be equally suitable?
Who would create the curriculum, teach the subjects, grade the tests and decide pass or failure to the satisfaction of the voting public?
If Background Checks and Personal Assessments are included, who will ensure these are done well?
Who decides the pass/fail criteria? Will merit be the only determinant or will Social Justice and other Woke dimensions factor in the selection process?
Who will pay all of the costs of this? The political candidates? The taxpayer?
How can we be sure that systemic bias does not bleed into the entire licensing process? (Licensing often serves politics instead of our citizens. Bias seems unavoidable.)
__ Attracting Good Candidates. Its difficult enough to attract good candidates into politics without adding significant barriers to entry.
How many honest, talented and wise citizens will go to the effort of undergoing these tests to will make them eligible to compete in an election? The odds of winning an election are small, especially for small party candidates ( there were 23 political parties that ran candidates in the last Ontario election). Even the major party candidates (Liberal, Conservative, NDP) have no guarantee of winning their riding.
The time and effort to gain a political license seems like a bad bet to me. I would certainly not run again if licensing were added as a significant deterrent to the already thankless task of being a political candidate in a system that is already skewed to favour the 4 major, publicly funded parties ( Note: I have written about the Oligarchy of Political Power in a previous My Life Lens essay).
__ More Statism and Bloated Government Institutions. Fewer of the lesser-known political parties and their candidates will register for elections if the cost and effort to participate becomes more daunting. The major parties, which receive government funding and support, will predominate even more than they do now.
If “democracy” is truly founded on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (such as the freedoms of speech and association), would the licensing of politicians be consistent with it?
If ideas are also foundational for a civil society, is it in our best interests to limit those ideas and the parties that promote them? For example, I am a passionate Advocate for Less Government and am usually the only candidate who actively challenges the More Government policies that the Liberal, NDP, Green and sometimes the Conservative parties are known to promote in order to “buy votes”. Who will introduce the topic of reducing the size, cost and scope of government authority if candidates like me stop participating?
Opportunities:
_ A Better Idea? Better qualified politicians is certainly an attractive proposition, but so is having better qualified voters. What if the same academic knowledge (Economics, Political Science, etc) that voters might expect of politicians was also taught to all high school students. Preparing students for a lifetime of voting is certainly as important as preparing politicians for public office, is it not?
_ A Licence To Vote? What if no citizen could vote without a license that indicates their adequate preparation to make responsible, informed choices at the polls? Should they not pass the same academic exams as a politician? After all, politicians are only endorsed by a majority of citizens.
Since both the politicians and citizen voters are ostensibly pursuing common interests - ie to create a better society for everyone, shouldn’t they be aligned by a common framework of understanding?
It certainly makes sense to me that both politicians and voters are able to make good decisions for the prosperity of everyone. I can’t think of a better place to start than to ensure that they share important common knowledge and principles with which to discuss all public issues and options.
Threats:
_ Corruption. With numerous political scandals in our history, public trust has declined for our public institution officers and politicians. Especially since Covid, it has become increasingly clear that both all vulnerable to outside influences. The consequences were policies and mandates that favoured the rich, powerful and politically well-connected. They certainly didn’t serve average Canadians fairly even though the suffered most by the crisis.
A politicians’ licensing bureau will also be vulnerable to nefarious actors who could likewise corrupt the integrity of its purpose.
Such a licensing bureau must be outside of the reach of groups like public sector labour unions which are known to act in favour of their leaders and members at the expense of everyone else in Canada’s greater taxpaying community.
Countless political lobbying organizations exist, including registered “charities” and special purpose “advocacy” groups, to pursue their own self-serving purposes. It will be difficult (impossible?) to put a moat around a politicians licensing bureau to protect it from these corrupting forces.
ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY is a MIRAGE.
I have become increasing cynical about “electoral democracy” over my 50+ years of voting eligibility. The promises of “democracy” have seemed elusive indeed.
In my view, elections suffer from the following shortcomings:
Popularity Contests. Some citizens vote for candidates for superficial reasons (nice hair, stylish socks, charisma, famous parents, great wealth, etc) rather that much more responsible criteria. This weakens the integrity and performance of our institutions of democracy to the detriment of everyone.
Buying Votes with OPM (Other Peoples Money aka taxes and public debt financing). “The easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is to make irresponsible and expensive election promises using OPM.” IMHO, these politicians are “OPM addicts” who deserve time in a rehabilitation centre rather than time in public office.
Tribalism. Many people vote for a political party (eg Liberal) simply because it has been a family tradition. Consequently, they see no need to consider any party platform or the suitability of each of their local candidates in comparison with one another.
Political Correctness. Too many citizens refuse to discuss politics for fear of becoming socially ostracized if they were to express opinions that are not commonly held and supporters within their social community. As social beings, to be ostracized from the community is a fate to be avoided at all costs by some voters. These same voters are also the most likely to claim it their civic duty to vote even though their knowledge as a voter is scanty at best.
System Bias. Elections at the provincial and federal level are designed, funded and supported to ensure that either the Liberals or Conservatives will win a majority or minority of seats. The NDP and/or Bloc Québécois will generally win enough seats to influence the balance of power in Parliament or the Legislative Assembly. Without going into the details of this corrupt system, I can attest to its existence as someone who has been a candidate in 9 federal and provincial elections representing the Less Government voice of smaller (Libertarian) parties.
SUMMARY.
The above brief analysis was done to showcase SWOT as an instrument to discuss complex issues from a range of perspectives. Not everyone will agree with my analysis - I encourage them to provide their own.
SWOT in intended for use by many stakeholders in order to aggregate and document all legitimate perspectives. Usually, the broadest range of possible choices and actions are included. These can be dissected and studied under the rigour of a tried-and-true problem-solving framework in as much detail as desired.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zdIXCPPFZudB3T4Lpf1uv8M7mcJBjK35/view
Licensing politicians, as well as voters, has many drawbacks as you correctly identified in your essay. The skills needed go vastly beyond what one may learn in an economics or poli-sci program. Ultimately, the goal for governments should be to provide society with a stable, but manageable set of boundaries in which citizens can freely associate to create the necessities (both tangible and intangible) for a happy and healthy life.
We pay dearly for an education system that is meant to teach our children hard skills including "the three R's" as well as soft skills (how to get along with others). Thinking critically, morality, and looking for objective truth (without utopian social justice crusading) should be given greater emphasis in order to produce qualified citizens, be they electors or political candidates.
I like the SWOT analysis method. Tons of great questions to consider here, Gene.
I wonder how elected officials would be impacted in the future if people were required to have mandatory political education in high schools. With more informed voters (both in quality and in quantity) leaders would theoretically be forced to pull up their socks in order to accommodate a stronger following. I think this would influence their required qualifications in a constructive manner and be exceedingly beneficial.
Corruption is an important concern as well because even with informed citizens, they have to believe the system works in order to want to engage. How can you convince more people to play a game that is apparently designed in opposition of their favour, or that there is honour in participating even when the results aren't obviously honest?
The tribalism you mention is a curious phenomenon to me which feels paradoxical when given any consideration. I personally think it makes the most sense to vote in relation to the specific expectations and duties regarding the role. Why vote for someone with nice hair to instruct an economy if they don't know how budgets work?
A woman I know is an example of this because she said she always and only votes liberal because this was her grandmother's dying wish. Over the course of 30 years, the liberals her grandmother was praising may have changed drastically but the principle is still unwaveringly respected.
There seems to be common confusion with chosing important criteria for making decisions. This leads me to wonder about appropriate intervals of reevaluating morals and values and adjusting accordingly.
With all this in mind, who is to say what the "right" way to vote is? If people have freedom of thought how can we adequately determine their reasonableness without just doing so as a reflection of our own bias?
Also, if politicians are to have specific requirements and licenses, what would the incentives be to encourage obtaining these? What is the appeal of defiance of corruption and how can further corruption resist promotion at the same time?
Thanks for sharing, Gene. Always enjoy hearing your 2 cents, which might be more like a dime or two now with inflation and taxation ;)