Survivor: How to Play Politics?

Survivor Cook Islands came to a dramatic end on SABC 3 last night, and with it came a fascinating look into leadership struggles. Part of me admits that the Survivor game of winning votes is different to real life, but then I pause to contemplate and wonder if politics is that different?

Let me clarify what I'm referring to. In the Survivor game show, the object of the game is not really to survive in the wilderness - it helps but it won't win you the game, as Ozzy and Terry of a different season can testify. The key is to get people on your side only for as long as you need them. There is a semblance of loyalty but it can be quickly put aside as the stakes rise.

Watching the game show, I'm sure that viewers have mixed views on this specific question: in the context of the game, is it okay to lie, deceive or betray? Many of you will say yes, and I understand your position. Personally, dishonesty violates me. I'm repulsed by it, and at the end of the show, I'd rather be known as the guy that everyone can trust and depend on.

Of course, in the game of real life, trust and loyalty are usually rewarded better than they are in a game show, except in politics. I would define politics as "the process of getting into power and retaining it". That in itself is not a bad thing if you have something genuinely good to offer. Rather, it's how that process is negotiated that has placed most politicians in the same bad books as lawyers.

And here is where I get to the point. I believe in a set of golden rules for the process of politics:

1) Be honest. Tell the voters what you stand for, what you intend to achieve and what you are capable of.

2) Be realistic. This is probably the toughest. Have tangible, observable results in mind when you shape your promises. And also accept that some missions are going to fail before you even start (especially when you don't hold a large majority).

3) Expect no reward. As Jesus said, true leaders wash feet. Nuff said.

My question to you is: do you believe a party can get into power just by being good? Is the Survivor game necessary, and if so, is it then justified?

Elbow Grease

I was seriously challenged today by someone who refuses to vote for the ACDP. He took offense to the fact that the party were preaching morality at him, and despite being a strong Christian, preferred to vote for a party that would serve his neighbourhood despite the moral standing of his party.

I understand his position. I scorn his ignorance of the moral issues, but I do accept that the ACDP hasn't had a lot of chance to show their readiness to buckle down and serve. A track record is important, especially in the realm of politics, where promises are made with little comprehension for what they require.

Firstly, I want to say in the ACDP's defense that there is not a lot you can do without finances and position. You are not allowed to build roads, make laws, run the police, run council finances or change the laws. There are of course things that you can do, such as get involved in community projects that require effort rather than finance (and this in your own spare time too, because without finances you need your own job). Also, you can do well with what you are given, and it is well known now that the ACDP punches well above its weight in parliament and in councils.

However, I do accept one criticism: if you believe in a project, go out to business and raise funds. The ACDP has been attempting to secure financial backing for a long time, but raising funds for a community project could be a more feasible alternative for some businesses. When they see that their donations are well spent in community service, perhaps they'll be more ready to inject cash directly into the party.

The bottom line is that the ACDP needs to continue sowing themselves into work on the ground that is visible to the voters. It's a pity that this contradicts the Bible which says you should not do good works to be seen - I don't have an answer on that one, do you?