On the eve of a new electoral cycle, the headquarters of political parties are reactivating one of their most complex and, paradoxically, least transparent machineries: the drafting of candidacies. On paper, this process should be the great showcase of democracy, the moment when political formations compete to present the best profiles, brilliant professionals, and social leaders capable of transforming the community. Reality, however, follows a radically opposite path. We witness, election after election, a worrying inability of parties to attract citizens legitimized by their experience, knowledge, and honesty.
The question is unavoidable: why do truly educated people with an impeccable track record show the slightest interest in entering institutional politics? The problem is not citizen apathy, but the hidden rules of the parties. For a professional who has worked for years to build their prestige, entering current politics is a trap full of risks. It implies subjecting oneself to ruthless public exposure, where the debate of ideas has been replaced by personal attacks and extreme polarization. But, above all, the real brake is organizational. Parties do not seek critical minds; they seek rank-and-file soldiers.
This is where the control mechanism of party leaderships is activated. Electoral lists are not designed based on criteria of meritocracy or social representativeness, but on strict internal survival. The system of closed and blocked lists functions as perfect armor. It allows organization secretaries and list committees to reward blind loyalty over competence. Those who dissent, who bring an independent technical vision, or who question the leadership's dogma, are relegated or directly expelled from the starting positions. To maintain control of the apparatus and guarantee subsequent voting discipline, leaderships prefer to surround themselves with gray profiles, party "plumbers" whose only known work experience is the organization's own structure.
This ecosystem generates an evident reverse filter effect or adverse selection. Talent flees because it knows that in current politics, mediocrity is highly valued if accompanied by submission.
The consequences of this inbreeding are devastating for democratic quality. By disconnecting from professional and civil reality, political parties suffer an alarming crisis of legitimacy. Institutions are emptied of technical solvency just when global and local challenges demand greater legislative and management finesse.
It is fair to recognize that, residually, there are exceptions that confirm the rule. On occasion, the imperative need to gain centrality or to recover a key electoral fiefdom forces party leaderships to incorporate independent profiles or professionals of unquestionable prestige. However, these exceptions usually respond more to an electoral marketing strategy (the need for a "star signing" to launder the party's image) than to a real desire for internal renewal. These peripheral profiles soon discover the seams of the system: either they adapt to the inertia of the apparatus, sacrificing their own judgment, or they end up abandoning institutional politics, frustrated by the bureaucratic suffocation and marginalization to which party dynamics subject them.
The room for maneuver of a lone voice is minuscule in a mechanism designed exclusively for homogeneity. If political parties continue to behave like placement agencies for their own cadres instead of as transmission channels for citizen talent, the gap between rulers and the ruled will continue to widen.
Thus, Plato's old warning is fulfilled: when honest and capable people withdraw from politics, government falls into the hands of mediocrity.
Add La Voz de Lanzarote as a preferred Google source.
Stay informed with the latest current news.