* This is the first part counterpoint in Capital magazine published between political scientist Kenneth Bunker and server. This is the first column ( if you want to see the original, click here )
elections embody a mechanism for direct representation, in which each person elected recognizes the responsibility translating the preferences of citizens in public actions and policies. Now, in his capacity as representative, are implicit certain benefits and privileges that set them apart from everyone else. But how justified higher wages than the average? And, under what set method without being an area within the invisible market competitiveness? But more importantly, why are people considered most significant?
The preferential treatment to legislators is not a new topic. Aristocratic and oligarchic circles have expressed since the time of independence. While social and cultural differences have always been the most notorious enclaves, economic data are more terse. While it is natural to expect that legislators have extraordinary profits are the special benefits and the magnitude of these sums to those who call attention. For example, unnecessary and frequent trips abroad and the neat free tickets to attend the stadium and are common themes. And last but not least, the figures of the famous diets eventually lift the argument that lawmakers have excessive profits. In this vein, the central problem is that the amounts allocated as salary and various allowances, the parliamentarians are defined and approved by them. So, could increase indefinitely because they can not be compared with what is considered a reasonable salary, or ethical-adjusting to the common market.
However, normatively How should set such high salaries? The point is to observe the rates of participation of legislators in their own work, which should be directly proportional to salary. That is, if they participate in 100% of its statutory tasks, deserve the total salary. Unfortunately, the situation in Chile is far removed from that proposition. In the last litter of deputies, only 6 out of 120 have 100% attendance at meetings. Something similar happens in the Senate, where only 5 of 38 have participated in all sessions. Although there are laws that punish these absences, remain ineffective in its purpose.
While you can justify the hype innumerable forms of parliamentary allowances and the extra profits with legislators, we must not forget the substance of these people, their representative character. But beyond that, they should not forget them, who are provided with power have the power to legislate on their own future. Ergo, part of their responsibility is also to be emphatic to apply common sense and restraint when making decisions.
The preferential treatment to legislators is not a new topic. Aristocratic and oligarchic circles have expressed since the time of independence. While social and cultural differences have always been the most notorious enclaves, economic data are more terse. While it is natural to expect that legislators have extraordinary profits are the special benefits and the magnitude of these sums to those who call attention. For example, unnecessary and frequent trips abroad and the neat free tickets to attend the stadium and are common themes. And last but not least, the figures of the famous diets eventually lift the argument that lawmakers have excessive profits. In this vein, the central problem is that the amounts allocated as salary and various allowances, the parliamentarians are defined and approved by them. So, could increase indefinitely because they can not be compared with what is considered a reasonable salary, or ethical-adjusting to the common market.
However, normatively How should set such high salaries? The point is to observe the rates of participation of legislators in their own work, which should be directly proportional to salary. That is, if they participate in 100% of its statutory tasks, deserve the total salary. Unfortunately, the situation in Chile is far removed from that proposition. In the last litter of deputies, only 6 out of 120 have 100% attendance at meetings. Something similar happens in the Senate, where only 5 of 38 have participated in all sessions. Although there are laws that punish these absences, remain ineffective in its purpose.
While you can justify the hype innumerable forms of parliamentary allowances and the extra profits with legislators, we must not forget the substance of these people, their representative character. But beyond that, they should not forget them, who are provided with power have the power to legislate on their own future. Ergo, part of their responsibility is also to be emphatic to apply common sense and restraint when making decisions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment