Many politicians have only work experience in the public sector. To what extent is this a problem? Or is it just an advantage?

Driving in the public sector is a profession.Just as driver in business is a profession. That is why many politicians are drivers in the public sector, just as they have many wholly in the private sector’S governance experience.

In any case, it is not an advantage.A politician can benefit from the ability to assess different aspects of a problem or issue. In General, there is practical knowledge of how an economy works, extremely useful, actually necessary, for a driver.

If you want to try, as is the case now, to unite the interests of a vital private sector and those of a clean, or at least not dangerously endangered environment, then it is definitely an advantage if you have the motivations and strategies of entrepreneurs and owners (the Shareholders) understands and can provide.

Driving is making choices and finding ways and then implementing them to get from an existing situation to a more desirable one.This is also happening in the business world. In really large and influential multinationals, there is sometimes a good and strategic reflection on the future, the horizon lies at 10 years or more. Shell, Philips and the S.H.V. are examples where that seems to happen. V & D, ABNAmro, ING, SNS and Pan Am are examples where that falie side has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the companies that analyse the future are very large exceptions. While a government should look far beyond 10 years ahead. Just take a look at the labour market situation.

Both government and industry have a great interest in the fact that young people are now trained in courses, especially competences, which we need in fifteen to twenty years.It is not very complicated to predict a few important developments.

Automation and Robotisation will continue, physical money disappears, and social media will continue to play an increasingly important role in influencing people and thus consumers too.The effects of pollution will be more and more felt. Juridization of society continues. English and Chinese will gain importance at the expense of French and German and all smaller languages. Demographic development across the globe to smaller families (2 to 3 children) and longer lives continues, but the development goes on in different tempo according to the development phase of a region in the world. This also leads to a large flow of migrant workers, because many young people from poor regions see through the Internet where people are much better and can also make the contacts through the same Internet to organize the trip.

The labour market will have a growing need for people to adapt to these developments.Flexibility and intellect will become increasingly important to compete in that labour market. Do you see governments and companies that are busy anticipating that future? I only very much. In General, you see that the government has more eye for these developments, while at the same time hampered by the reality of a population (voters!) that has only a very short horizon. The same goes for companies, but here it is the investors who have their short term interests (should!) prevail over the long term. Today I can have European shares in financial companies to exchange them tomorrow for agricultural products in the U.S. or, if the economy boomt, for industrial raw materials from Africa and Australia.

A vital and sustainable successful economy exists only where government and business are able to provide a population with essential services for that population.Perspective are in it for companies and government altogether differently.

But all this is only economically reasoned.A Government has other primary tasks, where companies have not eaten any cheese at all. Defence, necessary care, science, infrastructure, public order and security. So yes, good to have also people with an entrepreneurial background in public administration, but no, far from being sufficient for a functioning government.

In my view, it is a disadvantage, I would like to see In certain positions some people who can look at both the public and the private side of things.

But what I find much more worrying is the Trent we see now, where schools edg are now flooded with the left ideal.Where we see that the sounds come mainly from one side of the spectrum, I think that is dangerous.

But now I end up off your point, it’s the same thing as you want to get your sewer down.If you call a mechanic or a plumber, in that same sentence, you could say that it is not effective to let someone who knows nothing about the private sector take decisions about it.

But as the aforementioned gap between “left” and “right” increases, you will see that there is no rapid change.

People who run a successful business in the private sector are often assertive, and they are usually not very accommodating but rather competitive and these are usually the hallmarks of people who vote more right than left.

And it is not clear to me that the VVD still appeals to this group, certainly not at a time where the left seems to make an appearance.Although a lot is pushed back now, in other words it becomes interesting.

I hope I have answered your question somewhere (from my perspective)

It is not an issue that many politicians do not have.I have heard the president of VNO-NCW talk that he wanted a regular exchange between top positions in the public and private sector. In my opinion, that sounds like an antisocial form of plutocracy and a undermining of democracy by intertwing politics with business. No, I certainly do not think that “private knowledge” is needed in the Bewindsmannenan. But what is a problem is that an overlarge proportion of parliamentarians have the same background generally, and there is less attention for the entrepreneur. Parliamentarians are often highly educated with an alpha study.

Alpha studies deal with social and cultural disciplines, such as history, political science, sociology, education, social geography, etc.All very much related to politics and therefore logical that these people are over-vetted, but this leads to the fact that our policymakers may be less able to live and take into account, for example, low educated, entrepreneurs (i.e. those Private sector) and beta-educated (physical sciences, so about nature, mathematics, technology).

In addition there is still sex.Although we are one of the most mixed countries in terms of gender throughout politics, women are seriously underrepresented as group chairmen. And we whatand almost overtaken by the Americans, Hillary had become president. For we have only male prime ministers so far. There is almost no friction between the Dutch of different sexes. Women are not forgotten. Yet I find it weird that we have never had a female prime minister, and only 2 female group chairmen. It can emit a somewhat closed image.

And then the big elephant in the room that I may not appoint: descent.This is not about all the coloured Dutch, after all, migration and blending have been going on for a long time (e.g. the Jewish refugees in the golden Age and the Indos) and if you look closely at many “indigenous” Dutch people you can see many coloured traits. But in view of this migration from generations back and these people have often mixed up, these are culturally assimilated and have no racial problems such as racism, a socio-economic disadvantage or inadequate integration. Among others Wilders, Asscher and Baudet are (probably) descended from coloured migrants.

Moroccans, Turks, Surinamese and Antillians have recently migrated in large numbers.Because of this, they tend to cluster together: their people against the rest. It is important that they integrate and like the Indos, Jews, etc. Feeling Dutchman and not a detached group (and being seen so!) but it is essential for them to feel heard in politics! So We have to say that these people are also welcome and are also Dutchman. And look at the facts: there is no negroid chamber member and the Moroccan/Turkish MPs have or wenig attention to these issues (clover, Yesilg枚z, Azmani) or sit at THINK that makes the seclusion of these groups worse. Just as if they need a separate party because they fall outside the standard. This should stop.

Wow, I’ve made myself a long story!

Summary: Politics lacks a private work experience but there is a lack of representation for different population groups, including the private sector.

Most teachers have only work experience as a teacher and bricklayer as a mason.Both can be excellent politicians or totally fall into politics.

I believe that in many cases it is necessary for them to focus fully on the PUBLIKEK sector because the legislation in many policy areas is so extensive that Poltici needs years of experience to be able to function properly, especially if they Minister Post.

And in some ministries, such as the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, the chief of the Authoritility financial markets, and the national Ombudsman, it seems to me even potentially problematic if someone has experience in business, because the Possibility that such an office holder could be more easily influenced by the business community, in this case by the former employers of the relevant officer, will be greater than if the office holders in question do not have any history in a particular Company.

Leave a Reply