It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should politicians be forced to sign a legally binding contract?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 05:19 AM
Should we make our politicians sign a legally binding contract, like most other employment sectors. It's not like it isn't an important job. And seeing as most countries behave more like business's where the politicians are just board members, shouldn't they have to sign a contract of employment with the general public. This would mean we could judge them on results as well as sack them if they do not perform.

The thing is they tell us one thing before they get elected and do the opposite once in power. A contract would ensure they had to stick to what they say they would do or not do. We need to come up with a better way of holding politicians to account.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 05:32 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

Yes they should. What you see on the box is what you should get in the packet. If they cannot deliver they should not promise..........

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 05:37 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

I can't get over that sign in your avatar photo. Granted I should be commenting about the topic at hand, but that sign is genius.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 05:39 AM
Definitely, and I think that they shouldn't be paid so much. I believe making decisions for your country should be minimum wage, or voluntary, that way there is less room for corruption, and honest people would go for the job, since there is no incentive for money.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 05:43 AM
I think they should.... but there would be no politicians left because they'd all be sacked.

Tories said "No top down reorganisation on the NHS" what happens..... of course, a top down reorganisation of the NHS.

Lib Dems said "No increase in tuition fees... what happens... They triple for many people.

And that's just 2... this time, not even delving into the thousands of broken promises that have gone before.

But it will NEVER happen man... ever.

They're not there to serve the public, only themselves and the corporations and investors that they represent.

Politics is just beyond a joke now....
edit on 14/4/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 05:50 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

i most heartedly agree , politicians need to be held to account , we the people are their employers and we employ them to run the country in our best interest.

they tell us that they understand what the people want and if we elect them they will work to those ends .
but as we all know , as soon as they get elected they turn their backs on all the promises they made to us and pursue their own interests .

here in the uk we have a government that obeys every stupid rule that brussells tells them, regardless as to whether it is in the interest of the british public or not .

if an employee lies on their job application form it is fraud ,and if and when the employer finds out the truth they have every right to terminate the contract .

the same should go for the employment of politicians .

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 06:07 AM
Yes, I also believe that lobbyists should be banned, and Corporate person hood should be abolished. Lobbyists that are able to gain the attention of our government officials when voting on important issues that effect the citizens of this country are generally those with big money, or large corporations backing them. I suspect if I a simple citizen with an average income, were to attempt to sway a decision based on what is most important to average citizens I'd be turned away at the door.

This country was founded on the idea of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Not government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the richest the most power.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 06:20 AM
Kind of a weird point but...
for a contract to be legally binding you can't be forced or coerced into it.

On topic: we certainly do need a way of ensuring accountability among the political class - the current system breeds contempt and encourages misconduct.
Here at the local level the concept of "immunity" or "indemnification" for politicians and public servants
is believed to extend to high crimes and misdemeanors! Bureaucrats think the politicians rule so there ends up being literally no place to take any complaint of misconduct - the enforcement agencies WILL tell you that they're not telling you they're not going to take you complaint as they hand it back to you.


posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:10 AM
Without doubt they should, as noted above they get into peer on false promises, no vat rises, no more fuel duty increases, whatever it is. Nce elected they have free reign for 5 years and just don't care.
Adding comment so I can come back and add to more later...

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:29 AM
I think that before an individual is allowed to be a politician, it should be a requirement that they live as the average citizens do for at least 5 years first. No massive income, no mansions or second homes, no all expenses paid holidays, etc, etc.

Then they might have some idea of the struggle that is an everyday reality that they force on thousands of families and citizens.

I also think that if we can vote them in office, we should also have the right to a vote of no confidence when they backtrack on their promises and let us down.

edit on 14-4-2012 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2012 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:39 AM
Most Definitely, To even do a job for someone else in a craftsman trade, you need a contract, and there are standards you have to meat, that even if the customer has no complaints, but you do not meet the standard, you are deemed to not have met the contract. You have re-calls available in some instances for politicians, but the system is designed to be difficult to navigate, and hard to implement. Luckily, in Canadian politics, you can make things "confidence votes" in parliament, losing a confidence vote causes the government to fall, certain things are automatically a confidence vote, such as budgets. The down side is, it has no input from the voters, and is not really workable in a majority government.

A contract would make the politicians accountable to their employers, the citizens.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:51 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

While it's good in theory, there are definitely going to be things that they discover when in power that they didn't know prior.

How can, for instance, a person running for office promise to cut military spending, sign a contract to that effect, without knowing the intelligence and threats to the nation? For all they know the Pentagon could be watching China secretly building thousands of planes for an invasion. Are they seriously going to be held to that contract to cut military spending when they discover that another nation is preparing to attack?

I would suggest that there should be a contract, but that contract should detail all their investments, their personal wealth, their connections to large corporations and bankers, and that there is an agreement that they will not accept any profits related to any of those, nor will they make any business investments while in office.

No elected official should be permitted to accept any profits or personal gains while in that position.

All of their finances should be frozen when they take office, moved into trust, and then handed back without a penny more or less when they leave office.

Hell, right now I would take the agreement that their finances are open to scrutiny. Which is something that I do not believe is the case in any western nation.

They are open to massive corruption (as we have seen in the UK) and this should not be allowed to go unchecked.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:56 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

Absolutely. It would not put an end to corruption, nepotism, or any other negative sounding -ism one can think of. However, it would help.

I think the best way to do so would be in the form of a common law contract, between the politician and the constituents he/she represents. The politicians goals and policies should be completely spelled out...the constituents should have a clause granting them the power to conduct investigations into "questionable" activities....if said politician breaks the contract...instant removal, with a temporary replacement while a new election is held.

I think the contract being between the politician/constituents is important. I should only be allowed to be a party to and have a say in a contract for my state/federal congressional district. At the county/city level, any post that is granted by vote.

Off-topic, but it might add to it. I would like to see some sort of mechanism for a motion/vote of no confidence in our supreme court justices as well. That institution has become so politicized that its intended function is a distant memory.

Another idea could be to form some kind of politician regulation campaign created and run by citizens. Police our leaders. Do sting operations on them to keep them honest. If police can do it to us, we can do it to them.

In closing, great idea. The only way to get this to work would be difficult. I highly doubt a politician would sponsor or campaign for a law of this nature. That would leave it up to the people to get the law passed through a general election by having it put on a ballet. County level would probably be the best place to start since its mass is much lower, therefore easier to produce momentum.

Do you have any ideas to add that would help bring this about? It really is such a good idea that I'd hate to see it remain a pipe dream.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:16 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

Short answer, yes, they should. They are supposed to be taking a Constitutional Oath, which is also binding, to most anyway, but a written and public contract signed by Congressmen, Senators, and Governors with the people is a brilliant idea. Save for Ron Paul everyone of them is a lawyer, and a criminal.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Should we make our politicians sign a legally binding contract, like most other employment sectors...shouldn't they have to sign a contract of employment with the general public. This would mean we could judge them on results as well as sack them if they do not perform.

Someone already touched on this, but it is worth stating again -- it wouldn't be legally binding if we "make" or "force" politicians to sign a contract.

What is amazing to me though is that no one (at least not that I saw) has brought up that politicians (here in the United States) are bound legally by a contract as soon as they are sworn in (Article I - Legislative, Article II - Executive, Article III - Judiciary; each state also has such a contract in which their respective role in Government must adhere to). There are methods and rules to removing them if they break said contract (Federal officers are all impeachable and States have their own methods of removing elected officials).

All of which culminates down to the People to actually desire to enforce the contract -- of which on a whole, the People of the United States want to, but come time to punish or seek petition against their representative it becomes a different story.

We need to come up with a better way of holding politicians to account.

We have one but again -- on a whole the People despise most politicians, yet continue to keep them in power. While I am not excusing the politicians, we have to look towards ourselves and realize that we are just as much a part of the equation as they are -- since here in the United States, they are actually us (for the most part).

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:38 PM
No way.

I want my representatives to be flexible.

top topics


log in