Reasons to enter public service - aka, become a politician

Recently I was talking with a friend (who is also a relative), and happened to mention that I was considering standing for election. That led to further discussion, including the issue of why one could validly stand for election, with my friend stating that one should only stand for election for love of one's nation, and not for the pay packet (which is, to the possible surprise of some politicians, seen as quite considerable by many voters - with some reason, given that it is well above the typical pay).

I would phrase that sentiment slightly differently, in that I would ideally also exclude a desire for power (which I will come back to), but I thought I also have problems saying that I love my nation, and I have been thinking about that since then.

My initial reaction was along the lines of I want to be able to love my nation, but I cannot, given our growing inequity (which is contrary to the view I was surrounded with when growing up [in a white, middle class culture], that Australia is an egalitarian nation [I am - now - very aware of the irony in that]), and our hypocrisy over hospitality.

The latter point is over the issue of how we treat refugees, but first: the claimed tradition of hospitality. I recall reading a view that the tradition of hospitality is possibly due to such traditions amongst Irish convicts. That may be, although it could also be due to the demands of survival in what seemed, to the British and Irish in the late 1700s and early 1800s, a hostile and harsh land (I suspect such traditions have evolved in other such situations), or some other influences. (I am not in a position to talk about such traditions / practices amongst the indigenous peoples of Australia, but that is worth researching, for anyone who hasn't considered it.) 

The tradition could also be, in part at least, simply wishful thinking - much as the view of Australians as rugged, self-reliant bushies that I also grew up with was not correct then, and probably hasn't been correct since some point in the early 1900s or late 180s (we are now a very urbanised nation).

What is not wishful thinking is that we are NOT being hospitable, or even reasonable in my view, when it comes to refugees. That is a complex issue, including, for instance:

• our breaking of our word, which has been given on international treaties, for - in my view - political expediency (i.e., so the Howard government could get re-elected) and in response to a fear that is lacking in validity (perceptions about refugees are, in my experience and based on what I have read, wildly inaccurate); 
• concerns about security of borders (which is not enhanced by behaving in a panicked, fearful manner).

In the context of this discussion, our behaviour towards refugees is - and this is a pathetically weak description - not in any way, shape or form, "hospitable".

In fact, our treatment of refugees is so appalling that, in my view, we cannot claim to be hospitable - any small examples of hospitality that we exhibit in our everyday lives is as meaningless as the appalling practice of buying forgiveness (the commercialisation of "indulgences") from the Middle Ages that was one of Martin Luther's reasons for beginning the Protestant Reformation.

Refugees are refugees out of desperate necessity, including a fear for the ones that they love (family and friends; you might choose to fight oppression in an invasion or civil war, but you would surely want your children in a place of safety): responding with fear and harshness to their great need is not offset by offering a few alcoholic beverages occasionally to one's friends.

Actually, that last point also raises the fact that there are a few problems with the Australian "tradition" of hospitality (and perhaps other versions of it):

• alcohol has too prominent a part in modern versions of hospitality (a few centuries ago, alcohol was a safer way of drinking than what was often available as drinking water, but that hasn't been the case for a long time now - also, the bushie tradition was to boil the billy and have a cuppa, not to get drunk to the point of physical incapacity, which would be dangerous in such situations. These days, alcohol too often leads to violence); 
• my experience is that "hospitality" is too often used as an excuse to control others' behaviour - e.g., the accusations of being a "party pooper" if one doesn't agree to get disgustingly drunk, perhaps if one wishes to be hospitable by offering a traditional cuppa rather than alcohol; 
• those seeking hospitality too often forget that there are obligations of respect from the guest towards the host (this is an aspect that seems to be better addressed in Confucian traditions - and is also very strongly observed by refugees who are accepted into this nation); and
• apart from all that, there are valid buy varying views on what constitutes "hospitality" - which is simply part of the complex mix that is any society, whether it claims to be multicultural or monocultural.

The above is largely a consideration of the issue of hospitality from the personal and small group scale: that is also a useful scale to consider the topic of love from.

If one considers love of one's family, for instance, a lot of family members have differing values (which is one of the reasons that many family Christmas celebrations can be so unpleasant), but there is an expectation that one will love one's family members, despite clashes in values. In most circumstances, that is reasonable, but there are situations where it is NOT warranted - for instance, in the case of an abusive family member.

Religious values may become relevant here, with the sentiment of "love the person but hate the sin". There is a place for that, but I consider that the first and most primary need is making sure that the victim of the abuse - especially if that victim is a child - is safe.

To extrapolate from that to the situation of being (or wanting to be) a politician:

• the safety of nations is also important, but that safety has been weakened by how we treat refugees, not increased (keep in mind (1) that there has always been screening of refugees, and (2) the proportion of refugees who commit violent attacks is, according to an article I read a little while ago, much lower than the rest of the population); 
• one could say that one loves the nation but hates it sins - one wants one's nation to be free of inequity and fear, and to be confident enough to TRULY be hospitable (if nothing else, we could actually treat refugees humanely while their claims are being assessed).

Wanting to make one's nation "better" is a valid reason for wanting to be a politician - there may be disagreement about the nature of "better", but that is part and parcel of politics. As an example, I disagree with what neoliberals seek, but I concede that their desire for the nation to be better is valid. This also, to some extent, constitutes a desire for power - the power to influence the direction one's nation is taking, which I consider justifiable, or potentially justifiable, unlike the desire for power in order to be a powerful person.

I'm not so sure about any expression of a desire for Australia to be great, or "great again" as Trump trumpeted during his election campaign last year in the USA - Australia is a mid-level nation in terms of international influence, and wanting that to simply be bigger strikes me as a very playground approach to the topic of "greatness".

Nevertheless, I do want Australia to be a nation that I can feel proud of - in the sense of loving despite its faults, yes, I love Australia ... but we have a fair few problems to address.

Contributing to fixing those problems is why I am considering seeking election. I love Australia, and want to be able to be validly proud of Australia again.