Should members of parliament be allowed jobs outside the government?

[frogus23]

I'm competing in a debate in a few weeks against Magdalen College *spit* on this endearingly uninspired topic, so I thought I would plagiarise the arguments of you esteemed symians as a start to my research ...


Do we need committed, pure, undistracted MPs, or do we need MPs who are current experts, at the tops of their chosen fields?

[Weasel]

I'm torn between deciding. I believe the someone with experience can (doesn't always) do a better job and has a greater understanding of what needs to be done.

The downside being this person can have the effect of "loading" his or hers pockets while in the government. (Or thru contacts after their term)

[Sytze]

I tend to agree with Weasel.

On one hand, you can have someone who is excellent at his/her job, and excels at the area he/she operates in. If this is the case, then the government would have a better overall pool of (for example) politicians than normal. Logically speaking, this would mean that the government becomes better at what she is doing, which can benefit us all eventually.

On the other hand, if someone is an expert at a certain field, but works, worked, or has ties with large companies, then a conflict of interest could possibly arise. But like I said, there is only a possibility that this conflict arises and it's the question whether or not you want to risk this conflict to happen.

I think that -if I had to choose between the two- I would take the risk and have the experts at their field be in the government. Especially if the country itself could benefit from such an arrangement.

[Xandax]

A possibility with conflict of interests are way to large. That is about the best argument against it, imo.

[Moonbiter]

Ulterior motives will always be an issue. Now, where I live the Representatives (rough translation) to governement can come from virtually any background. They don't need any particular education, former employment, etc. They can, and in many cases they have, jumped into politics from non-demanding positions like high school political groups, unions, or even special interest groups. A good/bad example is a certain rather colourful character named Steinar Bastesen, who got a seat in governement by being the loudest, most verbal and to some most intolerable spokesperson for the whaling/seal-hunting/fishing community over here. This guy is a constant pain, as he has NO other motives for his political work than "sugaring his own cake." His education and understanding of the world as a whole is barely above the level of a 12 year old, yet he is a Representative of a Political Party that is incredibly powerful, and he still owns a small fleet of trawlers. He is covered by several parts of the Constitution, where as other politicians are not. For instance, many politicians have tried to rent themselves out to large corporations as lecturers and advisors. That's just not on. They are usually told to make a choice, and most of them run off to supposed greener pastures, only to discover that they're out of demand without the political clout to back them up. So IMPO, no. Either you're committed(sp?) to what you do, or you don't do it. After all, most employers demand total commitment from an employee, why shouldn't that be the same for a politician?

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by frogus23

I'm competing in a debate in a few weeks against Magdalen College *spit*
<snip>
Do we need committed, pure, undistracted MPs, or do we need MPs who are current experts, at the tops of their chosen fields?

I thought Magdalen College was supposed to be a very good collage?

My opinion is that MP:s, and especially the ministers, should be experts at their field. In Sweden, it was suggested some years ago by the youth organisation's of Sweden's next largest party, that people who were approved ministers should have a formal education relevant for the area, ie the minister of justice should have studied law, or the minister of finace should have an economic education. In the anti-intellectual Sweden this was however heavily critisised in the entire parliament including the mother party, since it was viewed as "eilitist" that only people with an education should be eligable for minister posts. As if anyone "from the people" could become a minister today. Being a politician is no different from other professions inasmuch as you have certain tasks that you are expected to fulfil. Thus, I think it is of utter importance that a politician is competent and knowledgable in the area when s/he is making decisions - even more so because those decisions affect so many more people that decisions in most ordinary jobs.

Regarding other committments, I agree with Xandax and Moonbiter that an MP should not be allowed to have another job outside the government. An MP should be loyal to the task of representing people's will and must be able to execute this with full integrity, without risking conflicts of interest with other entities than the voters. What's the point with "representative democracy" otherwise?

Good luck with the debate!

[Sean The Owner]

they shouldnt be allowed to work outside of their gov't jobs...other people need a one job and if the members of parliament are allowed a second job theyre just screwing the other people that need the money more than they do....like hobos for example or the poor or the young people that need job experience