Politics as a Profession

Politics as a Profession
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 23, 2009

We once believed politicians saw politics as a calling, in accord with sociologist Max Weber's ideal. Politicians must strike a difficult balance between their ethical convictions and their political constraints. We assumed that even politicians such as Machiavelli, who stopped at nothing and sold his soul to the devil, were acting for the greater good. But over the past several years, we have witnessed Taiwan's politicians amass huge fortunes and act solely for their own self-interest.

Such politicians defy our expectations. Moreover, when politicians openly reveal concern only for their own self-interest, how can we still believe they are qualified to engage in politics, which is everybody's business?

To answer this question, one must take a hard look at this business called politics. In general, the only time one will ever encounter professional politicians is in regions such as mainland China or nations such as the Soviet Union, which were founded by professional revolutionaries. In democratic countries, most politicians are people who have undergone a mid-life career change. The current issue of The Economist calculates that out of 5000 politicians in democracies over the world, most are lawyers and law-related professionals. They constitute nearly 20%. President Barack Obama of the United States and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Half of all U.S. senators are in law-related professions.

Are lawyers qualified to be politicians? Following the Chen Shui-bian administration, lawyers turned politicians have left society a highly negative image of themselves as people concerned only with procedural technicalities and eager to win at any cost. And yet America's greatest President Abraham Lincoln was a prominent lawyer. In his book "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville heaped praise upon lawyers for their respect for due process as a means of moderating public passions. .

Second on the list was businessmen. Businessmen turned politicians are even more controversial than lawyers. Take Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, or former President of Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra. Both blurred the line between their private accounts and the national treasury. Thaksin is currently in exile over charges of corruption. Silvio Berlusconi remains immune from prosecution because he is Prime Minister. Their methods of sheltering and expanding their private fortunes, have left a negative image of businessmen turned politicians.

But if one looks at examples at home and abroad, businessmen turned politicians are hardly the only ones who profit by assuming political office. Moreover, businessmen turned politicians are not without merits. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak was once seen as an exemplar of entrepreneurs turned statesmen. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is typical transplant from Wall Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. In the wake of the financial crisis, a number of figures from the financial sector joined the British Cabinet.

Then there are academics turned politicians. when former President Lee Teng-hui was in office he was praised as Mr. Democracy. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil, was formerly an academic famous for his theory of interdependence. During his term of office he helped Brazil remake itself and gain international respect. But the performance of academics turned politicians is difficult to predict. Dr. Liu Chao-hsuan's cabinet has been referred to as a "cabinet of professors." Yet its performance has been below expectations.

Lawyers, businessmen, and academics turned politicians once considered politics a mission. But in recent decades a new trend has appeared, politics as a profession. British journalist Peter Oborne's book, "The Triumph of the Political Class," points to think tanks, political consultants, public relations firms, and other quasi-political institutions which have become a reserve of political talent. These people may not have had any other form of work experience. In other words, politics has finally become a profession.

Peter Oborne cites the new British Labor Party as a prime example. If you want to stand out in politics, first, you must express an interest in politics while in school. Second, you must become an aide to a promising politician. Third, if you wish to reach the top, you must breath the same air and drink the same water as politicians at the top. This kind of politics doesn't concern itself with policy, only with marketing. Once in office, anything goes in the struggle for power, utterly indifferent to the perceptions of others.

Does this sound familiar? Everyone from members of the student movement on Taiwan who turned to politics, to Karl Rove, aka "Bush's brain," has taken the same shortcut to the top. This has led to either their own downfall, or their superior becoming the most unpopular president in history.

Every profession has its own code of ethics. But establishing a code of ethics for the "profession of politics" may be difficult. Those who seek political office have only one objective - to win. And after all, it is a zero-sum game. My win is your loss. My political survival means your political death. The new Political Class lives amidst such fierce competition. How can one possibily expect them to behave as professionals? How can one not expect them to degenerate into unprincipled schemers? Many people consider politics a necessary evil. There is no reason to expand this new Political Class.

The plight of Wang Hsueh-feng and numerous other former legislators is sad. But if this inspires us to establish pensions for legislators, it will only attract more unsuitable people. It will also expand the class of political professionals of dubious merit. Perhaps the best approach is to return to the classic model of politics as a mission, in which one enters the field without any expectations of profit.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.04.23
政治，作為一種專業
本報訊

曾經，我們認為政治人物應該將政治當作一種志業，就如社會學家馬克斯．韋伯的理想，政治人物必須在信念倫理與責任倫理之間辛苦掙扎求取平衡，即使是馬基維利式的政治人物，雖然不擇手段出賣靈魂，也應該是為了眾人更大的利益；但是，這幾年來，我們看到台灣的政治人物，不是為己聚斂巨利，就是為自己的生計哀哀求告。

這樣的政治人物不但違反我們的期許，而且，當政治人物敢於公然斤斤計較自己的福利時，我們能相信他們有能力作好政治這個眾人之事嗎？

要回答這個問題，就必須先好好面對政治這一行。一般而言，只有在靠著革命建國的中國或前蘇聯，才會有一群專以政治維生的職業革命家；在民主國家，多數的政治人物都是半途轉行的。這期的《經濟學人》統計全球名人榜五千個政治人物發現，在民主國家，律師或法律相關人士從政還是最吃香的，高達二成，不但美國總統歐巴馬、國務卿希拉蕊是律師出身，美國半數參議員都從事法律相關行業。

律師能不能成為合格的政治家？經過前總統陳水扁時代，律師從政確實留下不少陰影，他們執迷於程序問題、往往為了勝利不擇手段；但是，美國最偉大的總統林肯就是相當傑出的律師，托克維爾在《民主在美國》一書，就高度稱讚律師這種尊重程序的態度，可以平衡群眾的激情。

高居排行榜第二名的，就是商人。商人從政的爭議性，遠甚於律師，如義大利總理貝魯斯科尼，泰國前總統戴克辛都有國產、家產不分的問題；戴克辛涉貪流亡海外，貝魯斯科尼則藉總理身分取得刑事豁免權，他們保護及擴大個人私產的作法，是商人從政的負面示範。

不過，觀諸國內外的例子，藉從政牟利，並非商人獨有；而且，商人從政並非全無優點，例如韓國總統李明博，就一度被視為是企業家治國的典範，美國前財長鮑爾森則是華爾街進軍華府的典型，金融風暴後，英國內閣也增加了金融界出身的官員。

學者從政也是一種典型，前總統李登輝在任時被尊為民主先生，巴西前總統卡多索原來就是提出依賴理論的有名學者，他任內讓巴西脫胎換骨成為受重視的國家；不過，學者從政表現難以預測，劉內閣號稱博士內閣，但是表現不如預期。

不論律師、商人還是學者從政，初衷可能是將政治當作一種志業，但近幾十年來的新趨勢，則是「將政治當作一種專業」。英國記者Peter Oborne的《The Triumph of the Political Class》一書，點出智庫、政治顧問、公關公司等「准」政治機構，已成為政治人才的儲備所，這些人不必有任何其他工作經驗，政治終於變成一種專業。

Peter Oborne描述的是以英國新工黨為主的例子，如果你想在政治上出頭，第一步，在校時你就必須凸顯自己對政治的興趣；第二步，你務必要幫一個有前途的政治人物作事；第三步，最後若要登上頂峰，你必須與最能搞政治的人吃在一起，玩在一起。這樣的人從政不管政策內容只管行銷，一旦在位就無所不用其極的爭權奪利，完全無視他人觀感。

這樣的形容聽起來是不是熟悉？從台灣的學運世代從政，到號稱「布希大腦」的卡爾羅夫，走的都是同樣的登龍捷徑，最後不是自己身敗名裂，就是害頂頭上司成為史上最不受歡迎的總統。

如果說每一個行業都會有其職業倫理，看來，「政治專業」殊難建立合理的職業規範，因為，從事公職選舉的目標向來就是要贏，而且是零和遊戲、你死我活的勝利。政治新階層長期處於這樣的激烈競爭，如何要求此一專業的人，不發展出陰狠狡詐的心態！因此，就像許多人將政治視為必要之惡一樣，這樣的政治新階級確實不宜擴大。

王雪峰等諸多下台立委的處境確實堪憐，但是，如果真的為此去訂定立委退職金，只是吸引更多不適合的人，而且也擴大了看不出有什麼好處的政治專業階層；也許，回到古典的「政治作為一種志業」才是最好的一種模式，要進這一行前，你必須要有無法獲利的心理準備及決心。