When I was running for election in May, I was often asked what I thought “success” looks like in an elected representative.
Is it the size of an election majority? A particular policy’s implementation? Or effectively representing a certain community?
Each time I was asked this, I reflected on what a good question it was. Surely every candidate should share their answer before an election?
Here’s mine.
Public motivation
Whenever an individual is elected to public office, one thing remains true regardless of party colour or affiliation. Those who voted for that individual believe in some way their election will maintain or improve life.
To believe or vote for anything else is nonsensical. If you take this fact to be self-evident, there is one simple objective, above all else, that an elected representative must meet to be successful:
Each elected representative must, at the end of their term, leave their electorate with an equal or improved level of perceived wellbeing than the level felt at the beginning of their term.
To fail in this objective is to failure in public office.
The objective’s success can only be measured in polling, and is inherently personal to each voter. It is the principle each elected representative must meet if they are to be successful.
The realities of the wellbeing principle
This principle, which I call the wellbeing principle, aligns well with the realities of politics.
Sometimes you are presented with an uncertain case: unclear information and a decision that must be made one way or another.
Other times you are presented with a conflicting case: you believe one thing but are asked by your party to do another.
The wellbeing principle applies coherently in both situations.
In the uncertain case, you make the decision you believe your electorate will, in the mid-term, view as best for wellbeing. Not the view they will like tomorrow.
In the conflicting case, you are guided by political pragmatism. Will voting for something now, that adversely affects perceived wellbeing, enable you to enact a future policy later, which positively impacts perceived wellbeing?
Policy implications
Following the wellbeing principle has clear implications for policy.
The principle cannot justify grand projects that push an electorate into uncertainty for a prolonged period, or that actively damage an electorate for an uncertain length of time.
The principle condones substantial spending now for benefit later. This is particularly true where quantifiable or reliable forecasting of the results of spending can be found.
Well thought-out infrastructure projects, for example, can be approved today for future benefit. They may reduce immediate perceived wellbeing (from disruption to diverted spending), but in the near-term future they will increase the electorate’s perceived wellbeing.
My journey
I hope, as I continue on my political journey, I act in accordance with the wellbeing principle. It’s not a short-term measure or a knee-jerk analysis, but a longitudinal assessment of a public servant’s impact.
If politicians around the world all behaved in accordance with the wellbeing principle, I think the world would probably be a better place.
Leave a Reply