That's an explanation of how this is happening, not an argument that it should happen. What governments do is not some mysterious black-box that we can't influence.
So, maybe theoretically we can influence, but understanding the nature of what a self-interested, pragmatic government beaurocrat values is incredibly important.
I think the parent comment and idea behind it needs to be explored further. Maybe there is a solution, but it will perhaps require an entirely new type of government. Democracies, as we know them, don't seem capable of solving this problem.
Remove the word "populist" and you've just described most politicians ;-)
Democracy is only the problem insofar as we (here in the US) do not have one, we just pretend we do. Democracy and Republic both mean a government by the public. Voting once a year, donating money, and writing stuff on the net are utterly inadequate for that end.
Public government needs educated and involved citizenry. It means putting in quite a bit of time.
Would be far more representative of the people than current way and less susceptible to populism.
People often think I'm joking when I propose this but I haven't heard a good argument against it yet.
Jurors are asked to do a couple fairly common tasks that most people do frequently throughout their lives: (1) listen to different sides of a story and decide which side to believe, and (2) decide the motives for a person's acts.
A legislator is asked to judge complex policy questions often requiring extensive specialized knowledge. The arguments for and against are often long and complex. It's not a job you can expect to take some random adult off the street for and have them do it competently.
Do current law makers have to pass some kind of knowledge based test to be allowed to make the decisions?
1) By taking the average, you are risking compounding educational decreases in the populace.
Bad public education policy is enacted, chosen politicians become less educated, worse public policy is enacted, etc etc.
2) By using less experienced politians, you lessen the efficiency of the entire political process.
3) By not having the possibility of re-election, you remove any responsibility of the elected after they're elected.
2) This is the reason to only replace 25% if the parliament per year so that not all experience is lost. It gives more power to non-elected public officials which can be good or bad.
3) By removing reelection you also remove career politicians and reduce corruption. No need for campaign contributions or campaigning promises. Also, the drafted people would go back to their social circles to be judged by their peers after ended term of office where they would have to own their decisions.
2) You still have a maximum 4 year experience level. As someone who grew up in a college town, I'd estimate having to explain the basics to 1/4 of the elected body every year would require significant resources.
Additionally, handled incorrectly, you imperil the stability of the legislature. Imagine if every year were Trump election year: Mr. John and Ms. Jane Doe go to Washington intent on toppling the system as it stands because they're unhappy with the way things are.
3) Fair, but the social censure of being judged is a few orders of magnitude smaller than the power these people would wield while in office. If you think politicians are corrupt now, imagine if Exxon offered $x million in bribes to an average person off the street to approve oil drilling in wilderness refuges.
There is a lot wrong with the wealthy monopolizing political power, but at least it semi-insulates them against outright financial persuasion.
There are more than "politician corrupted by power" stories, there are also many politician does a good thing and fades into the background, or politician leads well for a long time stories too. These are less exciting and usually receive far less press, because they are remarkable in their unremarkable outcomes.