Daniel Halliday
Jul 6 · Last update 1 mo. ago.
Is there a way to break the “revolving door” that exists between politicians, lobby groups and corporations?
The revolving door is used as an analogy to describe the career movement of bureaucrats to positions in private industries or lobbying groups that they may have regulated in favour of (or vice versa), or the movement of persons between legislative and regulatory roles in a government. This practice is a common widespread form of subtle corruption and has been noted even in healthy democracies such as the European Union, Australia and Japan (where it is known as 天下り amakudari, lit. "descent from heaven"). Is there a way to breakdown this systemic corruption? Is the involvement of lobbying groups in such a system an example of political corruption? Could the internet be used to break down the revolving door of politicians, lobby groups and corporations? Or could the internet be making lobbying groups obsolete altogether?
Stats of Viewpoints
Yes – the internet and social media
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Add New Viewpoint
Yes – the internet and social media

Various examples of a revolving door between complicit bodies that are supposed to exist in parallel to one another have long been known to feed corruption in governments and regulatory bodies. This relationship becomes particularly murky with the presence of lobby groups whose job it is to pressure policymakers, but with modern social media platforms such as Twitter giving a direct line to politicians like never before, lobby groups should be increasingly viewed as obsolete, corruptive and should be restricted. This would go some way to disrupt this corrupt exchange of personnel and could be combined with measures to decentralise government, take some of the power out of the hands of politicians. The internet could go some way to form a greater system of direct democracy worldwide and undermine the power of politicians by giving the power to people directly, and giving government, regulators, lobbyists and private interests less power to make unpopular policy decisions that benefit the few.