Reply to post:

@Mark (85)

Well, I don't necessarily agree with that statement.

Personally, I think the problem is twofold. First, power attracts the corrupt and second, power is most easily obtained by the corrupt and corruptible.

An honest, principled person in politics will not go far in any of the major parties in any of our countries, whether that's the Democrats in the US, the Liberal-National party in Australia, Labour in the UK, the UMP in France or the SDP in Germany.

At some point, their principles will be a barrier to advancement and so they must either retain their principles and stay at a lower level (or leave) or else abandon them and make the deals and alliances to get the backing or funds or favours they need to progress.

In other words, the attainment of power requires a dedication to that pursuit and valuing the result more than the means or indeed nearly anything one must do or say or promise or anyone that must be dealt with or betrayed or hopped into bed with. Thus, those with power are those who had the willingness and determination to do what it takes to achieve it. And 'what it takes' is not a civic-minded and selfless service to the public, nor a personal integrity to tell the truth and do what is best.

That's why those people who do stand up for their principles and most champion a more measured approach tend to be independents - people who found that they wanted to make a difference and represent their electorate but were not willing to sell themselves and the public to the ideological dogma and commercial-influences of the major parties.

Some independents are corrupt too, of course, but the politicians that tend to stick up for what they believe in are very unlikely to hold any real power if they are in a major party. How can they? Take Australia's coalition, for example, where the leader has expressly told the members that they must vote on party lines, even if they disagree. (As happened in the same-sex marriage votes.)

Power doesn't corrupt, it's just easier to get it if you are and weeds out those who aren't.

But anyway - why "corrupt"? What is being "corrupted"? The true and noble nature of the venerable and honorable office of the professional politician? There's no corruption here - they are utterly true to their nature.