Who wants to be first, should be the "servant" of all!
A friend of mine wrote a great short article which I have permission to use. It's about Government Officials and the concept of being a "Public Servant". Whilst there are many fine politicians who work for the interests of the people they are meant to represent, sadly what my friend writes is all too often true. Here we go:
Public Servants - to serve rather than "be served"
The term “public servant” used to carry a sense of honour, humility, and responsibility. It referred to individuals who entered politics or government service with the understanding that their primary duty was to serve the public good, often at personal cost or sacrifice.
The phrase evoked an image of leaders who, rather than pursuing power for its own sake, viewed their position as a means of stewarding society’s well-being. In its traditional sense, being a public servant implied a commitment to transparency, accountability, and a moral obligation to represent the people’s interests—particularly those who were vulnerable, disenfranchised, or lacked the means to advocate for themselves.
The role required politicians to be both stewards of resources and guardians of democratic values, working not for personal gain but to protect the collective interests of the society they served.
Historically, public service was framed as a vocation, not merely a job. This meant that politicians were often measured by their integrity, ethical conduct, and their alignment with the needs and aspirations of their constituents.
They were expected to be accountable for their actions, and when they failed to uphold these values, they were held to account by the public, the media, and often their peers within government.
Public trust was the bedrock of this relationship; politicians were seen as stewards of a social contract between the people and the state, where mutual respect and responsibility were paramount.
Politicians & the Rise of BIG Private Money
In modern times, however, the term “public servant” has often lost this moral grounding. For many, it no longer conjures images of selfless individuals working for the common good, but rather of politicians who seem removed from the realities faced by ordinary people.
The rise of big private money in politics has exacerbated this shift. With corporate influence permeating political campaigns and policymaking, there is a growing perception that many politicians serve private interests over public ones.
This influence is particularly visible in the increasing role of large donors and political action committees (PACs) that fund campaigns. As a result, politicians may feel more beholden to the interests of wealthy individuals or corporations than to the constituents they were elected to represent.
Accountability & Transparency
Another significant factor contributing to this change is the apparent lack of accountability. Instances of insider trading, conflicts of interest, or cosy relationships between politicians and corporate elites seem to surface regularly, often without significant legal or electoral consequences.
This contributes to a growing sense of disillusionment among the public, who perceive that those in power are playing by a different set of rules. When politicians can leverage their insider knowledge for personal gain, or when they move seamlessly between government positions and lucrative corporate jobs—often in industries they were previously tasked with regulating—it erodes the public’s trust in the integrity of their leadership.
Corporate Married to Government
Corporatism, too, has altered the nature of public service. The intertwining of corporate and governmental interests has led to policies that often prioritize the growth of large companies and industries over the well-being of ordinary citizens.
This shift towards serving private profit has been particularly evident in areas like healthcare, environmental policy, and labour rights, where corporate lobbying can shape laws and regulations to the detriment of public welfare.
As corporations have gained more influence over political decision-making, the distance between elected officials and the people they represent has grown wider. This disconnect has made it harder for many citizens to believe that their leaders are truly acting in their best interest.
Lording it Over - Rather than Servant of All
Today, it is not uncommon to hear critics say that politicians “lord it over” the public, a far cry from the ethos of servant leadership that was once a hallmark of public service. Leaders who were once seen as accountable to the people increasingly seem insulated from the consequences of their actions, often benefiting from the very systems they are supposed to oversee.
Disenfranchisement
The erosion of democratic accountability manifests in several ways: from voter disenfranchisement to weakened transparency laws, and the monopolization of political discourse by wealthy interests. In many democracies, the voice of the average voter seems drowned out by the clamour of private money and corporate lobbying, leading to a profound sense of powerlessness among citizens.
In essence, the transformation of the concept of a “public servant” from its original meaning to its more cynical modern interpretation reflects broader societal changes. It signals a shift away from a political culture rooted in service and accountability toward one that is increasingly characterized by power dynamics where money, influence, and personal advancement overshadow the common good.
This evolution leaves many citizens feeling disconnected from the political process and sceptical of the intentions and actions of their leaders.
Where Will We End Up?
The challenge now is whether modern societies can reclaim the idea of public service and restore trust in the institutions designed to serve them, or whether the divide between the governed and the governors will continue to widen.
Perhaps these are good reasons to incorporate more #DirectDemocracy into our governance model!
Comentarios