25 Oct 13
Originally posted by sh76Good question.
http://world.time.com/2013/10/25/boxing-champ-running-for-president-in-ukraine/
Why do you suppose this phenomenon exists that some celebrities invariably try to cash in on their fame to pursue political power?
Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Or neither?
On one hand, celebrities have a lack of political experience which might be a bad thing. On the other hand, the name recognition may allow the celebrity to avoid being beholden to those that contribute to his campaign and that might be a good thing.
Probably neither.
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by sh76I don't see it as being either. Anyone should be allowed to run for political office.
http://world.time.com/2013/10/25/boxing-champ-running-for-president-in-ukraine/
Why do you suppose this phenomenon exists that some celebrities invariably try to cash in on their fame to pursue political power?
Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Or neither?
26 Oct 13
Originally posted by sh76It might be a bad thing in that voters might be swayed by name recognition to support a candidate and thus pay less attention to actual policies. It might be a good thing in so far as a popular independent candidate might be able successfully to advance desirable policies that were eschewed by established parties.
Why do you suppose this phenomenon exists that some celebrities invariably try to cash in on their fame to pursue political power?
Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Or neither?
In the UK in 1997, a Conservative MP, Neil Hamilton, faced accusations of sleaze and was widely despised. However, his seat, Tatton, was a staunch Tory constituency, and it looked as though he would be re-elected for lack of a plausible alternative. The BBC foreign correspondent Martin Bell decided to stand against him and won election as an independent to parliament. Bell's presence allowed constituents to vote for clean government, and his name recognition must have helped in his victory.
26 Oct 13
Originally posted by sh76Specifically in the case of the Ukraine, I suppose it's possible that a widely popular celebrity might help to overcome divisions between the Russian-speaking east and the Ukrainian-speaking west of the country. Ukrainian politics currently operates largely in the context of these regional divisions.
http://world.time.com/2013/10/25/boxing-champ-running-for-president-in-ukraine/
Why do you suppose this phenomenon exists that some celebrities invariably try to cash in on their fame to pursue political power?
Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Or neither?
26 Oct 13
The post that was quoted here has been removedAbout as successful as you have been making friends here. 😛
OK That was a cheap shot. But you are right.
Glenda Jackson was not really successful as a politician
proving that fame does not guarantee success in politics.
We had a guy over here called George Lee.
George Lee is a successful economic journalist who
left the state TV company and ran for office. He was
elected immediately because of his fame and air of
no nonsense accountability and righteousness.
Only to later resign in frustration because he felt he
was not making the difference he thought he would make.
George is now back working with the state TV company RTE.