What will my incentive be if I am on a term?
The so-called “Time Preference” is a concept that argues that considering the scarcity of time, human beings will have a preference for satisfying their needs in the shortest possible space of time.
If we transfer this idea to politics, it is easy to deduce that in a four-year period the politician’s preference is to satisfy his immediate personal needs – he is on a deadline. The consequences for the collective are not his problem.
In this way, it becomes easily identifiable that there is almost never a positive incentive, which is why it is extremely naive to believe that those who govern us “act for our good”.
The politician’s greatest incentive is to continue to satisfy immediate needs as long as possible, from which we can conclude that to reach the top of a political position, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is necessary to be immoral. The person who is governed by strong moral principles is purged by the system itself.
There are no perfect systems, but we have learned not to think about the flaws of democracy. And it is important to understand that this system is also flawed. Perhaps more than the social constraints already ingrained in our minds, they prevent us from even daring to think.
If the satisfaction of immediate need is the motivation, the tendency is to present populist proposals, empty promises in order to achieve the greater end of remaining in a position of power, since power opens doors to the distribution of privileges, resources, benefits; those at the top of the chain will not hesitate to spend taxpayers’ money to maintain this luxury and the tendency is for the most well-intentioned or noble personalities to refuse to play this game.
While I am pondering this idea, right next door in Spain, democracy is failing.
There is debate about the legitimacy of whoever won the elections, in a fully democratic system, should govern.
Never has the idea of high time preference, with all its distorted incentives, presented itself so clearly and so closely, as we are witnessing in Spain.
Let us see that a candidate who lost the elections is willing to disrespect the will of the majority by openly putting the democratic system in check, taking advantage of its loopholes, to have another four years of power, privileges and resources.
The PSOE candidate wants to govern Spain with the help of those who want to break away from Spain and yet applaud and enjoy the way in which the system allows them to make everyone else a toy.
If Sánchez’s ambitions are achieved, Spain will be held hostage by people who have broken the law and others who have committed bloody crimes. The country could disintegrate in a haphazard, chaotic and catastrophic manner. The scenario seems very serious.
But that becomes very little in the hands of someone who could play the game by the rules he claims to respect. After all, in four years’ time, there will be an open door, which has been taking shape all this time, perhaps in Europe? Why would Sánchez be worried? His needs seem to continue to be met. As long as he now guarantees the continuity of the system that elected him.
Furthermore, Spain is a constitutional monarchy.
In a monarchical system, the King knows that he will remain in power for life and that he will have to live with the consequences of what happens. The focus is not on his immediate needs, as his daughters will also have to live with the consequences of what happens. Ultimately, the country is his home, in simple terms, his private property.
As with any private property, we know that if we make poor choices in our decisions, it is only a matter of time before we have problems.
The King does not want to sign the amnesty for the enemies of his house. He knows the consequences, but he can do nothing. The way forward is through the personal satisfaction of immediate desires.
Democracy has failed, right next door, in the name of opportunism.