Rather executioner that politician

The border of the executioners was only God and us: no one tolerated them, they were so these in this way that they were forbidden to live within the walls of villages and villages. They lived around, they were segregated with the same asco with which the lepers, killers or thieves were segregated. They were the target of the ingratitude of the communities and populations that woke up to the pillory to see rolling heads, but hated who cut them. Someone had to do so and, until the nineteenth century, being executed was a public function that obviously did not dignify who assumed it. It was also a profession that went from parents to children, there was no choice: Carrasco's son would have to be executioner. Only God and us more than a motto was a family tradition. The border meant that only God judges them, that they lived in a limb between heaven and earth, outside the world but in the service of mortals, killing.
Safeguarding proper distances, intensity and functions, today's politicians suffer from the same evil look. This is where we are walking between shouts, shrink and insults. In the public debate it is only heard who shouts and, worse, who sustain politicians. Today's politically correct is to be politically inquisitor. If it is the fault of politicians, the media, social networks, spectators or system, it is a discussion that will be only in discussion. The answer, this, will be the archaeologists of democracy to give it.

For now the practical result of distrust with politicians is that there are very few who want to dedicate their lives to politics. There is nothing rational in being political: it is not progressed, it is not used for the curriculum, it is not earned as much as in the private sector, there is no privacy and the risk of going to the ground because the answer was not ready or right or because the brother -in -law has rural land is imminent. Being rich, then, is fatal, as it was to be executioner. The new German chancellor has an airplane, is an eminent lawyer, is Catholic and is a multimillionaire at the expense of his work. Here, it would not have been the sieve of headlines; There, the headlines only upset him because the plane spends a lot of fuel. There, such a chancellor would not be ruler or even, but could not decide on TAP or the new airport – it would be in conflict of interest to have an airplane – and would be forced to publicize all the business that made it multimillionaire. The Pharisees say in the 21st century that those who should not fear. WRONG: Who should and who should not, fear. They also say they advocate scrutiny, which in democracy has to exist scrutiny on those who hold public office. Right. But scrutiny is not striptease and the limits must obey decency and not to voyenorism.

In addition to the escape of young people abroad, we have the escape of the young people of politics. Who is technically well prepared, the best students and the most ambitious, do not even want to know about parties, politicians or politicians. The public service, this one, is fulfilled in volunteering actions, at best. Being a political is registration, not a curriculum.