Poisonous Debating Societies

The chances are that if you rose to prominence in a college debating society then you will become a politician.

I was a passive member of some of these societies and went along to view a debate or two on subjects that interested me. As anyone that has every gone to a college debate knows, it is a frankly bizarre situation. Practically everyone in the room will know each other and will already have rivalries and strategies for derailing an opponent. Added to the air of self-importance and complete lack of humour, this all equates to an unusual and fairly depressing environment.

The most bizarre thing for me however, is the format of the debates. A debating team will be given a position on a subject and have to argue it, regardless of their personal opinions. Why on earth should anyone want to argue a perspective that they do not believe? What sense of accomplishment can be achieved when you have successfully convinced someone of a point of view that you do not share?

The advantage of debating societies for potential politicians is obvious. They get a chance to network, form opinions and place themselves in the political mentality. However, it also conditions them for putting across opinions that they do not believe. This naturally creates a huge amount of insincerity in the budding politician. This is obvious in countless countries, where politicians hold a contrary view, not because of their believes, but because of their career.

If we want sincere politicians, we should train them in a sincere way.

-The English Student

Naive Politics

Many politicians inside and outside of the government have retired in the past month and they left office due to an unexpected failing.

It really does seem that politicians suffer from two major instances of naivety. On the one hand, these people seem to completely misunderstand why a career in politics is a good idea. Coming through college these people become empowered by the open environment and energised by an apparent will to create change. The assumption is that these patterns extend to a wider social level and that a politician can enter government and reform the entire system.

The other example of naivety comes from politicians that are already well acclimatised to the system. These people have been in the politics game for a long time and realise that new blood coming in is foolish to think that they can affect great change. However, the show naivety in other ways. These politicians believe that they are above the laws that they have sought to uphold. The system has obstructed all attempts to change so the rules are circumvented. While this may be done with good intentions it circumvents the entire basis of our democratic system,

Perhaps there is an even great example of naive politics in these areas. The belief going in to every election that we the people can actually affect life and policy is time and again proven to be false. It really does seem that it does not matter who is driving us forward, as the route has already been defined. It really is a case where the blind are leading the blind and we have given a mandate to be lead in this way.

While politicians may be naive, perhaps we are far more naive for actually believing in them.

-The English Student