politicians should listen or quit

concerns of customers. I then started thinking why politicians cannot say the same. Surely, there should be notices on their office doors to say that they are listening to the peoples’ aspirations. But do politicians listen or do they only say what they think people what to hear?
Some years ago, there was a British MP, who only spoke once in parliament after he was elected. For the next 45 years, he sat in parliament, he did not speak again. At every general election, he was re-elected without even bothering to campaign like what other candidates did.
His strength lay in his ability to listen to his constituents.
He attended most of the activities in his constituency such as, weddings, school prize giving ceremonies, funerals, visiting old age homes and attending to every concern of his constituents. He also ran an efficient office manned by volunteer housewives.
He intervened with government officials and agencies on behalf of his constituency. That was the way he thought an MP’s duty was, to listen to his constituents rather than make fiery speeches in parliament.
Whenever budgets were being prepared, he made sure that whatever was allocated to programmes in his constituency was properly used for the purpose it made to achieve.
That was a typical case of a representative of the people. What also bothered me was whether the banks with such notices in their banking halls actually listen to the depositors?
Who should be real shareholders of the banks if not the depositors? If there is a run on the banks, like it has happened in many countries, the banks would collapse because the depositors would have lost confidence in the particular banks.
That is why bankers have to listen to the concerns of the depositors. Is the money being borrowed guaranteed to be paid back with interest so that the banks could remain solvent?
The money borrowed belongs to the depositors not the bank management.
As for politicians, why they should listen to the electorate is because they would not make it back to parliament.
It is not just listening but to implement what the electorate wants not just promises but to be seen to get involved in offering solutions to problems being faced by their constituents. But, do rallies provide a platform for people to air their concerns?
Rallies my be necessary for the politician to be heard and to expound what he or she stands for, but it is not the answer to the problems faced by voters.
A heated debate took place at one of the sports clubs at the weekend. The question was whether the problems faced by the electorate were the creation of jobs and alleviating poverty? Some were adamant that the change of government was the solution while others were of the opinion that politicians must come up with ideas on improving the welfare of the people.
While this debate was going on, what came to mind was what I read in the banking hall whether politicians just like bankers had the capacity to listen to the people. The on going constitution making process is a case in point. The whole exercise of going to the people was to afford them their right to be heard on how they should be governed.
But, now we hear that the contributions of the people cannot be captured in the constitution. If that is so, then the forthcoming referendum would be a futile exercise. Surely, it is not a question of whether there should be a president, prime minister or the number of parliamentarians, but whether there is going to be room for people’s aspirations to be realised. Will there be institutions that would listen to the wishes of the people? That would be the crucial aspect of the constitution.
For example, we read recently that a family had to pay compensation to the family of a murder victim.
This was an out of court settlement.
But if compensation was enshrined in the constitution, then this would address the major social concern of our culture.
The topic among voters or the electorate is that of sanctions that have made it impossible for any economic policy to succeed to address the wishes of the people.
The people require jobs in factories that we are told are under capitalised. Farmers require budgetary support like their counterparts in the European Union or elsewhere.
Others are saying that the inclusive government must continue as long as possible. But is this possible with sanctions in place?
How can stability be maintained while others in government are prevented from having normal business with the rest of the world?
What amount of listening will take away the yoke of sanctions?
Are the politicians listening that the effects of sanctions cannot fulfil the aspirations of the people, which are to alleviate their suffering through creation of jobs and which would alleviate their poverty?
Even in countries where there are no sanctions, the cry is for jobs to solve their economic crisis.