Except for that its exceedingly difficult to accomplish anything of worth without some political influence outside of your sections control. Doesn't matter how much buy in you can get from your management, you're still in the end at the mercy of someone else's political whims.
I was a civil servant for awhile. Politics frequently got in the way of our department's work. Political initiatives would interrupt the ones we were working on and would frequently change based on whatever they felt like legislating that session or whomever was newly appointed. Not every department would be like that, but in a lot of cases there's too much outside influence by politicians to get any real work done.
I'm curious - why use the word "politics", why not say "democracy"? i.e. "Democracy frequently got in the way of our department's work. Democratic initiatives would interrupt ones we were working on ..."
I point this out because our society often denounces politics but enshrines democracy. Yet no one can logically explain the difference between the two. It's a fascinating cognitive dissonance. Perhaps you can explain?
The problem is one of scope. Democracy directly manifests the "will of the people" only at the ballot.
While there are second-order effects, politicians are largely free to ignore aforementioned "will" during their day-to-day routine. Thus they generally spend time manuvering and manipulating for an increase in personal power - which is what we call "politics".
"Politics" exits even without "democracy". It exists in dictatorships, in offices, even within families.
It is therefore completely correct to enshrine democracy while denouncing politics. Does this make sense? :-)
EDIT: When I say families - I am referring to "joint families" (large family groups consisting of a matriach/patriach and multiple sons/daughters/uncles/aunts and sundry). While this is not un-common in India - I felt I'd better explain it to everyone else.
What is this mysterious "will of the people"? How is it measured except through the politicians the people elect? If the politician relies on polling to make every decision, is that "democracy"? Or should we have direct democracy with each decision being subject to a popular referendum? Although, even a referendum is not the "will of the people" - it's just the will of the majority. Perhaps then we should demand complete 100% consensus for every decision enacted?
As a reader of hacker news, I assume you like to think of yourself as a person of science and reason. But when you summon phrases such as "will of the people" you have left that world. The phrase is empty - it provides no information, and contributes nothing to the discussion. Would you mind more precisely defining what you mean by "will of the people"?
Let me give you an example. In the UK Gordon Brown was the Chancellor. The will of the people was that he managed the economy and that's all. The will of Gordon Brown however was to be Prime Minister, so he used his role as Chancellor to take power over unrelated departments by manipulating their budgets. That strategy worked pretty well for him. It's not working so well for we the people right now.
I'm still not sure what "will of the people" means or how one determines it. Again, it helps to speak in terms of observable phenomena rather than ambiguous concepts. Let me attempt to phrase your sentence a bit more precisely:
"A majority of British voters cast votes for Gordon Brown under the expectation that he would manage the economy, and that's all. Instead he used his role to grab power, at the expense of the people"
Is this a fair paraphrasing?
I can then rephrase your original sentence:
"Democracy is when elected officials act in a way that voters approve of. Politics is when elected officials act in their own self interest, in a way contrary to what voters want"
Is that it? Or let me try a second, different, way of paraphrasing:
"Democracy is when elected officials act in a way that benefits the public good ( whether the public realizes it or not). Politics is when an elected official acts in a way the benefits himself, regardless of the public good"
Is one of these summaries fair? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to nail down precisely what you are trying to say.
"I'm just trying to nail down precisely what you are trying to say."
He's trying to say he doesn't like Gordon Brown.
re: your original point, I think in this context, by 'Democracy' people mean "honest politicians working towards ends they think their constituents would approve" and by 'Politics' people mean "politicians doing (probably dirty) work, driven by all kinds of pressures, often self-interested ones".
It's a difference in intent. To some extent it's the difference between murder and manslaughter. Or perhaps between murder and execution.
It's true that I don't, but he does make an excellent example of a politician that put his own career/personal glory ahead of his duties to the electorate.
He seems less legacy obsessed to me than Tony Blair.
Large chunks of the UK media have had it in for him following some initial mis-steps (the will he/won't he election-call thing comes to mind).
As far as I can tell, their story then became the self-fulfilling "he's a lame duck who can't manage the media".
I don't like a lot of things the Labour govt (Blair and Brown) have done/are doing, but I don't think Brown stands out an as example of political self-interest.
