On Politicians

"Nations which select the men who are to govern them might have been expected to choose men commanding universal admiration and affection; it might have been thought that those who were deemed wisest and best would be selected for the delicate and responsible job of managing other people's affairs. This, however, is not the case. In most democratic countries to call a politician is to say something derisive about him ... This is a paradox which was not foreseen by the pioneers of democracy. Indeed, it was not true in their day. When democracy is new it usually brings great men to the fore but it loses this merit as it becomes well established. Why is this?... Meanwhile, let us remember that in a democracy, criticism of our politicians is criticism of ourselves - we have the politicians we deserve."

Bertrand Russell

It sure is ironic that you should not let democracy fully develop for the sake of the nation. When democratic processes are fully established, it becomes a playing field favourable for the popular politician (in the negative sense) and not for a 'governor' - where qualities closer to a good manager, with a good sense of international and ground issues, would be more suitable. The unfortunate limitation of human capacity is such that the people who can 'get there' or usually very different from the people who can 'do it'. When the electorate choose options that will benefit themselves (as people tend to do on promises) and not those 'fit to rule' (which may not benefit the voter), the democratic machine blindsides itself. There is little point in criticizing the democratic system because there isn't anything hitherto better than this bad machine. But all these points toward a view that being more democratic is not necessarily a good thing ... and that we may have arrived at something good, perhaps unintentionally.