Automatons for the People

A constant complaint of the Scottish election has been the lack of genuine charisma and talent amongst candidates. But the skills it takes to get through a party selection panel are different from those needed to radically change society. Mostly, writes Anonymous, we get the politicians we deserve

ASKING why party political selection processes don’t turn up the most ‘talented’ people in society as candidates is like asking why fishing nets don’t catch potatoes – in both cases the simple answer is that it is not what they were designed to do.

I’ve been involved with the selection of candidates in both the Labour Party and the SNP.  I’ve also been (briefly) close to the vetting process via which these two parties decide who is eligible to be considered as a possible candidate.  And in all cases the process is designed to select people with a certain kind of personality profile.; or more accurately reject those with the wrong profiles.

It is worth starting with two crucial points for the defence.  First of all, it is important to remember that elected politicians face a level of scrutiny that would leave the rest of us reaching for Prozac.  The convoluted criteria which can get you mugged by the press involves a series of unwritten rules about ‘gaffes’, ‘sleaze’ and ‘numptyism’ by which no-one could abide continually and at all times.  Second of all, this disproportionate scrutiny makes all comparisons pretty dangerous – where exactly could you go to look for someone who never makes mistakes, is morally impeccable and is genuinely talented in a range of different skills?  The self-serving and enormously over-rated ‘business community?  An arts community whose lifestyles would leave them on the front page of scandal rags forever?

That said, we could still hope for better.  There is one personality trait on which party election processes come down particularly heavily, and that is free thinking.  There are many ways in which this can be articulated – usually ‘safe pair of hands/ability to stay on message/loyalty’ verses ‘liability/loose cannon/egotism’ – but it always means the same thing; parties choose people they think they have a reasonable chance of managing.  It is understandable – which organisation doesn’t select people it thinks it is capable of managing?  But it has gone far too far in UK politics where straying from a strict party line even by the smallest margin is a ‘split’ or a ‘gaffe’ and where any internal diversity is seen as weakness.

And there is one personality trait on which party election processes are far too kind, and that is the ability to ‘operate’.  Making friends in the right places still carries far too much weight and the ability to rise through the ranks by ‘playing the game’ rather than by being good is still too prevalent.

So it is that I saw the following things.  I saw a shortlist of candidates for an eminently winnable seat which consisted of one uninspiring ‘safe pair of hands’, one local old-hander who was utterly clueless, a ‘young thing from the central office’ who had clearly done a training course on how to stand but was in every other way completely embarrassing, and a young man who showed the promise that in ten years’ time he might be a contender.  The Safe Pair of Hands won the nomination.  The Safe Pair of Hands didn’t even make a dent at the election.  I saw an election process which selected a candidate in a manner so corrupt it took my breath away – the person who set the rules for the election was bought off with a job, the meeting contained an in-built majority of four councillors and their families and it then elected to put only one candidate on the ballot from which party members would choose.  All of this was decided by probably six people, and high among their criteria was not ‘talent’.

I saw a vetting process for one party which would have given a kangaroo court a bad name.  Those who wanted to be candidates turned up and were then selected or rejected with no reference whatsoever to what was said in their interviews (all the independently-minded people apparently couldn’t answer simple questions, all the obedient people apparently gave wonderful performances).  No reasons were given for rejection.  I saw another vetting process more appropriate to King Lear, in which candidates sought to out-ingratiate each other in fealty to the Party Cause, suspecting this was the way to win big.

All of which is dispiriting.  But before you drift off reassured that you were right about all those second-rate politicians, one important thing to remember – we usually get the politicians we deserve. If you want to be right that all politicians are rubbish then just keep looking for flaws.  Of course you’ll find them, and in so doing you’ll force the political parties to favour the flaws they think you favour.  Which is to say safety.  Which in turn is to say mediocrity.  You want something better, then take a risk.  Until you do, how can you expect the parties to do the same?  Scotland could do with 129 really talented legislators.  And about three million voters willing to give them a chance.