Mister and madam speaker, the savageness of politics that we have now often means that we forget about the moralities of our policies, ladies and gentlemen. The savageness of politics right now means that many people do not want to participate in politics because it has been going into the extremes which means our politicians are not trustworthy and anti-establishment is on the rise, ladies and gentlemen. And since, we should ask ourselves two questions: whether or not we want politics which means the creation of policy; one that is only based on the effectiveness of that policy, ladies and gentlemen. Or whether or not that policy was able to cater to the moral legitimacy of those things and catering of many vulnerable goods and society. And secondly, how do they envision politics? What is a fair competition within the grounds of our society?
A couple things to set up: First of all, we think this would apply to all levels of politics, ladies and gentlemen. From the (unintelligible) to the presidential, ladies and gentlemen. What do we mean by “good political character”? We mean things that are genuine, ladies and gentlemen. We do not want opposition to come here and say that people are just going to use it as a persona. This is to say that citizens are aware of what is genuine and what is a persona. They’re going to scrutinize them to their very best. Aspects like honesty, respecting meritocracy, instead of giving link to your political party into the cabinet.
It is working consistently to understand the concerns of the group and not just increasing the political effectiveness of their own base. They’re somehow trying to create policy and support the grievances of certain people. The clarification that we provide is that primarily, based on the main consideration that most of the debate in campaigns only talk about political character. When two people, two candidates, are so similar and so identical, we think that policy could be the tipping point within that dialogue. We’ll show you that it’s more likely that tipping point will happen and why it’s good on our side.
First argument, we’re going to tell you the prerequisite for any meaningful policy to be
successful and effective relies on the leader’s political character and the type of government instead of the policy appeal and the policy effectiveness. What you need to understand is that their ability to offer a policy that accurately targets the problem of society is not something that is necessarily good or (unintelligible) something that is always given to the society. Why? First, we think that when you only base yourself around policy, and only think about the candidate that can give you political effectiveness, you don’t take into account the morality behind those policies. This is not to say that the policies are entirely unconstitutional. Trump’s Muslim ban, for example, (unintelligible) is still within the legal bounds of American constitution. But that Trump ban on Muslim still violates human rights. It only panders to the frightfulness and fearfulness of one’s society. And can effectively provide immigration policies to the people that violate the morality of other people. What we need to understand is that we do not always get the leader
that we like or the leader that are within our political ability. So we need to ensure that we don’t always think about policy that’s effective but also moral so that when the next time a leader that we don’t like doesn’t come in, we are not the brunt of these things. The brunt of these policies. It ensures that there is no abuse of policy. Why? Because this person is able to understand that the other side’s concerns have to be listened to too. The other person’s honest to say that “these are fears of my constituents that I’m trying to cater to and I’m willing to listen to your advice and what are the concerns on your side.” This also means that person is willing to honestly engage with other people instead of blaming the media and blaming other political party and instead of understanding what they want.
Secondly, policies are exclusionary unlike character. When someone is honest and caring for you, it is not exclusive to your race, your group or your gender.
But policies can never accommodate everyone in the society. Not every policy, economic policy for example, can cater to every sector of the society. So that means, sometimes that policies are effectively good for some people and effectively bad for others. When you have a good political character, you’re able to create both participants’ support. Which you want to listen to and provide mitigating factors in your provision so that it doesn’t hurt the other side too much. And even when you get your political effectiveness, at the end of the day, it won;t be something that is too damaging to the other side in which politics is only a win-lose game.
But thirdly, since this requires trust and good governance, why is it in democratic states around the world (unintelligible), it’s because every promise made by the politician is often not given to them. Turns out, they’re working for all these groups, corporations behind their back. Often times, when they do something wrong, they play the blame game and blame the media and the political party. This creates polarization. Why? Because people who are affected by policies are extremely infringed groups. The far right of the tea party in America or the FPI in the super left-centrist Indonesia. Why is that bad? Because the majority of modern people feel that politics is not working for them anymore. They no longer participate in that politics anymore, they don’t go for the voter turnout because they think that the politicians will not deliver what they promised in the first place.
And this is where even when you think about policy, the policies are always horrible because they’re always on the extreme end. Because modern people do not think that they’re honest people. If you are based in honest people, people are more willing to trust the establishment and understand what they’re doing.
Secondly, how do we envision our politics to be? How do we want to make it fair? We have two perimeters. First of all, it has to be accessible. Because we think that politics is only fair when everyone is able to access the political field. We have more options for us to choose from. But often times, when we’re based on policy or certain types of background, many people from the mainstream group and mainstream political ideologies are unable to bring up their light and talk about those discussions in the first place. This means that policies are discriminative because you’re unable to access those things. But honest political character is something everyone can develop regardless of (unintelligible).
Lastly about certainty; politicians are generally not technocrats or experts so its not (unintelligible). But being a good and honest person is something that they can actually develop. (unintelligible) and then they can consult the experts and technocrats for the policy in mind. At the end of the day, politic isn’t just some gruesome savageness or effectiveness, but also morality.