Politicians as jurors?

The BBC website has a nice post up about how the question of politicians being ‘in touch’ isn’t a straightforward one. It sort-of reprises a few points that I made in this post here a while ago – that no-body really agrees with anyone else about very much, and that – under such circumstances, politicians are in a bit of a cleft stick. On of my ongoing questions here is to ask what kind of politicians do we actually want? A few weeks ago, I asked if we really want paragons of virtue? And does a private personal wealth allow people the luxury of looking virtuous that their poorer rivals can’t benefit from?

My next question is this:

Do we want politicians to behave like jurors?

We may actually have an answer to this question within the next year or so. I say this because ‘The Jury Team‘ are hoping to field candidates at the next election and they have a rather nice website up here. They are plainly enjoying the way that MPs are being exposed for their venality, or – let’s face it – their downright dishonesty in recent weeks.

The Guardian’s Marina Hyde gives a flavour of the case for independents who are there to exercise their good judgement in our interests, and it comes quite close to the mission outlined by Edmund Burke’s great Speech to the Electors of Bristol – for me, the definitive statement of what representation should be:

“…it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living”

  Apologies for quoting that again – I know it’s not the first time, but it is good, isn’t it? A juror has the added virtue of not ever being tempted to play to a sectional or class interest – their motivation is simply to be seen as scrupulous legislators. So what’s wrong with this approach then? My questions are as follows:

• The UK is in competition with rivals: Will these guys collectively marshal the nation to out-trade, out-manoeuvre (or out-fight!) our global rivals?
• Surely this will just provide us with people who judge the ideas of others? Where does the enterprise come from?
• How does one change the direction of government at an election if our candidates are jurors? Surely they can’t arrive in office on day one of government with anything as sleazy as plans?
• Would such a bunch of representatives actually further enervate politics? Would people give up all interest in how they are run? Would we just be resigned to some rationalist paradise?

I have plenty more questions where they came from, but I’d be interested to hear yours. A few answers would be good as well?