First of all, people should stop referring to them as kids. The young politicians elected on May 2nd are adults. Young adults, but certainly not kids. This word difference matters because it is causing people to mix two very separate issues: age and qualifications.
Some use the term "kids" to imply that they aren't qualified simply because of their age. That's, of course, nonsense. Many younger people have managed to pack a lot of experience, education, and knowledge into a few years.
We also have some people using the term "kids" to excuse things that have nothing to do with age: "the kids are alright," "give the kids a chance," all implying that any criticism is due to their age and/or should be tempered because of their age.
You can't have it both ways. If age doesn't matter - and I don't believe it should - then the same expectations when it comes to qualifications for new candidates should apply to them as they would to any newcomer. If you start excusing them because they are "kids," then you are saying that they are not as capable as the real gown-ups, in which case they shouldn't be representing Canadians in Parliament.
Another problem with going on about the kids is that serious issues get lost in the whole quit picking on the kids thing. As kirbycairo pointed out to me, the problems with token candidates in write-off ridings would not have come out as it did if so many of the winners had not been so young.
That's true, but it doesn't mean we should dodge the problems that surfaced (nor is kirbycairo suggesting that). There are problems with parties running candidates who aren't properly screened, not suitable to the riding they are running in, candidates who don't bother campaigning, and lack of engagement with and from the public. Those aren't age issues, and they aren't limited to any one party.
As for young people running and winning, terrific. We should demand the same from them we would of any candidate, though, or eventually, after a few more elections, overall quality could suffer.
Having younger, qualified politicians is a very good thing. It encourages more young people to be involved in politics; it helps represent needs and will of the younger segment of society; it delivers a new perspective.
h/t Dammit Janet! for another example of the invisible candidate phenomenon. A CPC member, in this case.
Monday Afternoon Links
9 hours ago
4 comments:
Brings up the question:
What exactly is a qualified candidate? Before we see them in action in Parliament or doing vs. failing to do constituency work, just how much do we have to go on in assessing their "qualification" to represent the people? And how much agreement would there be about what qualifications are good? I mean, personally, I would consider economics degrees from the University of Calgary to be a *dis*qualification for public office . . .
Which is not to say there can be no criteria at all. Many of them are about ideas and personality as much as previous experience, though. Many people with excellent qualifications even by my standards also happen to be unpleasant, unethical people who do not have my best interests at heart. And ideology is important as well. I'm not going to vote for a fascist even if he somehow is also sweet and warmhearted and competent and amazingly qualified.
people set up criteria and qualification lists for all kinds of jobs. Parties should do the same. Doesn't have to be inflexible, but really, any good manager considering hiring someone does what they can to make sure the candidate is capable of entry level work and has the ability to learn, etc.
Parties take their time in selecting the best candidate for ridings they think they can win, ones they really focus on winning, so they can do it for all ridings.
The problem is that elections can happen without much notice and preparation suffers from the lack of time.
What we need to do is make politics far more localized, with more power to smaller regions, and less power on the federal level.
It should be communities finding someone who fills all the generally accepted "qualifications" in nominee's and voting for them.
Take the power away from the corrupted parties and have the people represent themselves, not a colour or family affiliations.
good idea, David
Post a Comment