Pollies and image: is it the connection that's wrong?

"…It is difficult to conclude categorically that there has been an actual drop in standards of behaviour."

The Commissioners then went on to borrow an observation from Britain’s Nolan Committee which was also toying with this notion of perceived lower standards: "We can say," said Nolan ," that conduct in public life is more rigorously scrutinised (emphasis added) than it was in the past, that the standards which the public demands remain high, and that the general majority of people in public life meet those high standards."

The Nolan Committee did note however that "…there are weaknesses in the procedures for maintaining and enforcing those standards."

There were views expressed to COG in Western Australia that while there was a large level of cynicism and scepticism these reactions by the public were perhaps a healthy – rather than an unhealthy – sign of life in the West. But the Commissioners then made an important observation that warned that:

"…when scepticism turns to cynicism and complacency, it can impair public confidence."

I found it instructive, then, that the argument had now returned to that word "confidence" and all that it implied – how to establish confidence between elector and elected and how to maintain it.

But in reality, and this is my own experience, confidence and trust can’t be contrived, or shaped, or manufactured or PR’d; or at least if those artificialities are present, the confidence and trust cannot be sustained. In the end, people – be they voters or work acquaintances or friends – know instinctively who to trust: it’s part of their ‘training’ as members of the human race.

Thus it is that all the Codes of Conduct in the world, all the Manuals of Ethical Principles for MPs, all the Registers of Pecuniary Interests, all the induction and training schemes for newly-elected politicians….all of this will be to no avail if the elected representatives are unable to capture the trust and confidence of their voters, and keep it!

A long-retired Federal MP from W.A., John Hyde, held the view that "…our pollies know more or less when they are behaving badly." I agree with that. Similarly, a retired State Minister, Keith Wilson (a former clergyman) said his own intuition "…is that everybody has some instinct about what is right and what is wrong. . ."

I agree with that, too.

So the answer to how we improve the image of politicians? My answer is that we should actually dwell less on image and more on those elements of our behaviour which (a) are likely to attract adverse media comment, and (b) which in turn, by being reported, reduce the trust and confidence of which individual MPs of all parties are capable.

It is perhaps in our rush to improve the image of politicians, in being seen to be wanting to raise standards, that we force ourselves into an artificial world which, by definition, does not exist: a world where politicians are charismatic, elegant, handsome, articulate and faultless practitioners of their craft. Back in the real world the voters are generally happier with people they can trust, in whom they can develop confidence and a comfort zone. Perhaps we can help the voters back into that real world by dropping the connection between politics and a better image.