Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Politicians’ outside interests, banning of
Section B. Constitutional/governance

This debate looks at whether being an elected representative should be a full-time job, or whether politicians should be able to balance it with other paid work. Do we value politicians more if they devote their time while in government solely to politics, or do we welcome the idea of elected representatives having business interests outside their political role?

Pros

[1] Politicians are elected to serve their constituents full time, and for this they are well paid. When members of parliament continue their past employment or accept new directorships or posts as consultants, they are short-changing and insulting their constituents, who expect their representatives to be working solely for them.

[2] Countries should not be ruled by ’pressure group politics’, where the most important decisions are made by small interest groups which influence the most important politicians. This subverts natural democracy where all members represent their constituency and the people who elected them.

[3] It is impossible to police outside interests. We can never know precisely what a politician has promised to do in exchange for money, even if that money is declared in the Register of Members’ Interests. The only solution is outright abolition.

[4] It is wrong in principle for any individual or group to be able to buy political power and influence. Even if lobby groups are allowed to influence politicians, they should not be allowed financial arrangements with them. Otherwise only the wealthy groups paying the most (e.g. major corporations selling tobacco, arms, cars, etc.) would be able to win legislation in their favour; smaller, poorer factions (e.g. animal rights’ defenders) would have no say. If money is removed from the equation, then each opinion has a more equal chance of being heard.

Cons

[1] The recent trend for politics to be populated by career politicians is deplorable. Few ’normal’ people would enter politics if they had to abandon their previous life, especially as the salaries of most politicians are actually very small. It is far better to allow outside interests and attract, for example, experienced business people or lawyers to parliament.

[2] Politicians are elected to represent the population of the country, which must include interest groups as well as geographical constituencies. They will always represent the special interests of vocal groups of constituents with particular grievances (e.g. cases of alleged miscarriages of justice), but that need not totally exclude representing broader interest groups. A politician’s own constituents must always be his or her first concern, but need not be the only concern.

[3] Political lobbying is acceptable so long as politicians declare their pay-masters. It is not the fact that finance is involved at all that is objectionable — a politician’s job is to persuade the government to pass legislation, so why should they not profit from doing their job? — but the fact that, if the arrangement is concealed, their motives are unclear. Declaration of outside interests is sufficient — they need not be banned.

[4] Politicians do not have the time to listen to every opinion and weigh them up against each other. By the very nature of capitalism, some groups will wield more power and may be able to influence parliament directly; but there are many other methods which smaller parties can use to make themselves heard. These include petitions, use of the media, direct action and so on.

Possible motions

This House would ban politicians from having outside interests.

This House believes that elected representatives should represent their constituents, not lobby groups.

Related topics

Capitalism v. socialism

Privacy of public figures

State funding of political parties

Term limits for politicians