It very much is, but I don't believe it is the skill of "solving problems" or "making society better".
Politics is about getting elected. Convincing the people that it's all the others' fault, that you know better, that you will save the world. And then when they get elected... we naively expect them to solve problems. But we selected them for their capacity at being selected, not their capacity at understanding the big problems society is facing...
Getting elected is table stakes and shows you have the soft skills needed to organise, campaign and convince. Which is the minimum you need to get disparate groups of humans to pull in the same direction and make progress in advancing the country.
Theres no consolation if you get experts to plan solutions to problems but 1) the people you need to implement the plans have their own opinions or priorities and 2) the public want focus in some other priority and are start rioting if they don't feel heard.
You need schmoozers as much as you need tacticians.
I don't currently have any data that says otherwise and the counterfactual remains unexplored (but it will be with this parliament!), but things that people do and say to get elected often are things that if implemented...would not solve the problems the populace that elected is having.
I don't think we need schmoozers, we need people who understand the problems of their populace and have the structural power to implement their solutions. We shall see if they need more than this, but this would be the first exploration of the counterfactual.
People who have their "own" priorities don't end up upsetting the apple cart when we make success in implementing those solutions the same as their success (which if we are effective problem solvers, should be possible. See Deng Xiaoping)
A lot of the problem can be attributed to voters accepting the blame game, overly simplistic solutions, and expedient absolutist views over debating a plurality of options.
I'm not saying that the political system isn't to blame here. At least where I live, it is structured in such a way that winner takes all and loyalty to the party is more heavily rewarded than representing the constituent. But, again, that is a system that we in some sense designed.
Western politicians and political parties incentives are to get elected while doing as much as possible for special interests (and by extension, as little as possible for the common good).
Same goes for voters. That people cherish their ignorance isn't an excuse. You need minimum information. Approving something you didn't read shouldn't count. It's basic signal to noise ratio.
I would force each election program down to a single page. Each voter gets two random programs and we remove the name of the party from it. They stay in the voting booth long enough to read both programs then they chose one. It gets +1 the other gets -1. Each party gets an equal amount of voters.
Then a new government department that reviews if an elected candidate or party is actually doing what they wrote in the election program.
When the election results are in voters provide an approval rating that they can change at any time. This can be a simple app. If they stay below some rating they get a warning and a chance to correct their mistakes, if the rating stays low for some time they are thrown out. The lower the rating the sooner they leave.
Other sensible metrics also lower the rating. Things like leaving the seat empty or being late for your job. Imagine how silly it is that this is even a topic. Not showing up for work?
If we don't count medical situations Nigel Farage is the absolute world record holder. He once missed 77 consecutive UK parliamentary votes over 11 weeks. He also had the lowest attendance records in the European Parliament. For the Fisheries Committee he attended 1 out of 42 meetings.
He provided us a great service by showing one can just do that. The EU created some weak 350 euro bonus system for each day the politician actually shows up. When they showed up only to have their name recorded then left the bonus was reduced by the % of absence.
If you are hired to do any job and chose to not do it you cant stay. If a garbage man doesn't collect the garbage at all they are fired the same day. If they collect [say] ~90% they are fired after a month. You could still pay them if you want but if someone is sick long enough you need to hire someone else or the garbage wont be collected.
I also don’t understand why the Pan American Highway or rail from Nome, Alaska to the tip of South America never got built. Nor can I understand why Oak Ridge, Tennessee Thorium Research Center and further development was left to rot. The Chinese are very close to throwing element 90 in our face.
There's a lot under the umbrella of "politics" that happens after you get elected. If you want to accomplish anything after you get elected (heck, even if it's just personal enrichment) you have to be somewhat skilled at getting others to work with you, one way or another. As a politician you can have flawless convictions and be right and well-informed about all your decisions, but at the end of the day you're just one vote (to use legislators as an example) and it does nothing if you can't convince or work with others.
The whole "you are just one vote" doesn't really apply there. As the 30th legislator on your party list, you show up and vote as you are told. And in systems like the one in the US, barring rare moments, it's also not all that different. The card that your party will abandon you, and that if you want a position of any importance you have to play ball means many a junior congressperson just votes as they are told, and spends time fundraising.
In such political systems where you essentially must vote the party line, what makes an individual "effective" (ie. what constitutes being "good" at your role)? I'd say it comes down to all kinds of political soft skills, ie. forging the right alliances, convincing the right people to change course, understanding motivations of others, etc.
All of these are generally called "politics", and are things that happen very much after you're elected.