Why do politicians love roads, nuclear power plants, and schools?

Author: Georgi Georgiev

And why exactly for this reason should they be deprived of the right to dispose of them?

The topic of this post inspired me to read the book by Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein: “The State in the Third Millennium” (The State in the Third Millennium), which I recommend to anyone interested in politics and the political structure of society. Of course, the answer to the question of why politicians love roads, nuclear power plants and schools is not one, but the perspective presented by Prince Hans-Adam II on page 104 of the third edition offers a fresh look at this, beyond the well-known arguments about corruption opportunities, serving private interests at the expense of society, buying votes, etc.

In short, the thesis is that the expansion of the state into areas other than its main function: preserving borders, internal order, lawmaking, and enforcing justice, is actually a way for politicians who have failed in their main function to blind the eyes of voters with "successes" in other areas and thus secure their political future.

The paragraph reads:

„In a number of states, the police not only complain about a lack of financial and personnel resources but also about a lack of support from the politicians. This should not be a problem in states that focus only on foreign policy and the rule of law. Politicians and parties who fail in those two tasks cannot compensate for this with achievements in other areas and will therefore endanger their re-election. For the voter it will be much easier to make a clear decision, as the whole system becomes more transparent.“

In translation:

"In many countries, the police complain not only about the lack of financial and human resources, but also about the lack of support from politicians. This should not be a problem in countries that focus only on foreign policy and the rule of law. Politicians and parties that fail in these two tasks cannot compensate for their failure with achievements in other areas and will thus reduce their chances of re-election. It will be much easier for voters to make a clear choice, as the entire system becomes more transparent."

We have plenty of examples of this both in Bulgaria and in a host of other modern countries that differ from the state of the third millennium proposed by Hans-Adam II. Bulgaria is criticized from outside and inside for the lack of rule of law, for the desperate inefficiency of the police and prosecutor's office, for the failure of a number of other key systems, but the people in power, whoever they are, always get away with the kilometers of built highways, energy projects (implemented or not), kindergartens, etc. In some cases there is really good work done, but quite often we have failure in an expensive package, and often the boasting is even only with projects. I do not discuss the stochasticity and the fabrication of facts.

If we transfer the same example to a private company, such as Coca-Cola, would it work? Coca-Cola is a producer of carbonated drinks, but also of mineral water ("Bankya"). How would we accept such a hypothetical statement from the company's CEO?

"It's true that for the tenth year in a row we can't handle the quality of bottled water, the caps are leaking, external labs are reporting that there are heavy metals in the water, people are being hospitalized because of unfiltered microorganisms. But look what a great product we have with the new Coca-Cola Hit! You should definitely give me a new 5-year contract, because we're already working on Coca-Cola Super Hit!"

If this were a real statement, the director would have been fired long ago and his bonuses taken away, he would have been held liable under civil and perhaps criminal law, and there would have been no question of extending the contracts of his close associates and directors in the company who were partly responsible for this situation. The public outcry would have been enormous. There would have been public apologies and agreements to pay compensation to the thousands or millions of affected consumers.

When the equivalent of this statement is made by a politician regarding the judicial, justice and other systems entrusted to them, however, nothing of the sort follows. Society seems to be content with receiving 1/100 of what it should have received at three or five times the market price, and the fact that the other 99 things are subject to any criticism is swept under the carpet. Once X km of highways are built, Y kindergartens or an investor is secured for a nuclear power plant, then we turn a blind eye to years of poor management and functioning of everything else. Of course, it helps that the benefits are visible, physically existing and often quite visible, and the losses are usually distributed among many people and are invisible in a short time horizon and for people indirectly affected by them, it helps to maintain this state of affairs.

The special status of politicians and the state is not deserved in any way and is much more dangerous in its consequences than the abuses of any unscrupulous “entrepreneur.” One good way to eliminate the current intolerable situation is to move to a state with minimal obligations and responsibilities, for which it would be much easier to assess whether they are being fulfilled and to bear the corresponding responsibility at a personal level.

The text is reprinted from the author's blog

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!