If we start voting in a democratic election based on the actual strength and character of the candidate than other prejudices.

The problem with politicians it is not this. A big percentage of them they are corrupted. They collaborate one another but only if there is something grasp! there is no remedy, the only thing is to terminate this transition period and go to the next social paradigm.

I must agree with Costas to the extent that the poltical system of a given country operates this way. However, I would like to add that a significant number of politicians must be very economical with the truth in order protect the strategic interests of their parties. This is often counter productive, and I very much agree with the view that it reflects a lack of collaboration. But on the other hand, isn't it naive to expect straight open collaboration between politicians! I would be more inclined to promote inter-party relationships for the greater good of the nation...

I have to agree with Costas, that we live in political systems that encourage competition rather than cooperation. Our systems also work on adversarial interest groups which again does not encourage collaboration. Party systems do the same. So, what is the next step to a new system that is cooperative and truly democratic?

If the politicians truly recognize that they have been elected by the voters to serve them to fulfill the needs and basic requirements, that only can help them to become more open, accessible and collaborative.

Most often it is quiet common that before they got elected, they pretend to be dedicated to serve the voters, but once they are in power they forget common people and isolate themselves from the voters and whatever they do is just to make them wealthy and rich.

Dear Sylantyev

The world is full of charismatic leaders who lead many nations to chaos, dictators are great example of this; There are religious leaders, that with such charisma, manipulate minds of followers.

The good politician sees to it that the citizens have access to public health services, education, sanitation, leisure. Creates opportunity for people to escape the conditions of poverty and improve life. The good politician sees that public money is not diverted.

There would be bad policy if citizens understand their role in society. If he became aware that that politician is employed him. What we lack is the commitment with our vote..The greater the ignorance of a people, the greater the number of corrupt politicians. It's necessary that the less developed country, such as Brazil, invest more in the education of children that will be the politicians of tomorrow

Electoral district size may play a certain role. Not necessarily for making politicians more open but for increasing congruence between politicians and voters, i.e. for improving political representation (see our contribution on that subject).

Article District magnitude and representation of the majority’s pref...

Whatever we may say about corruption and politicians, until people gets fully educated on the evils of electing wrong people into these positions, problems will remain. It is universal as you can see from the following references:

1. Winters, M. S., & Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2013). Lacking Information or Condoning Corruption: When Do Voters Support Corrupt Politicians?. Comparative Politics,45(4), 418-436.

2. Olken, B. A., & Pande, R. (2011). Corruption in developing countries (No. w17398). National Bureau of Economic Research.

3. Heilbrunn, J. R. (2005). Oil and water? Elite politicians and corruption in France.Comparative Politics, 277-296.

4. Schleiter, P., & Voznaya, A. M. (2011). Party systems, the selection and control of politicians and corruption. Paper unpublished. (http://dosen.narotama.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Party-Systems-the-Selection-and-Control-of-Politicians-and-Corruption.pdf)

5. Bobonis, G. J., Fuertes, L. R. C., & Schwabe, R. (2009). Does Exposing Corrupt Politicians Reduce Corruption?. Unpublished manuscript. (http://mitsloan.mit.edu/neudc/papers/paper_354.pdf)

6. Chemin, M. (2008). Do Criminal Politicians Reduce Corruption? Evidence from India. Cahier de recherche/Working Paper, 8, 25. (http://www.cirpee.org/fileadmin/documents/Cahiers_2008/CIRPEE08-25.pdf)

7. Porta, D. (1996). Actors in corruption: business politicians in Italy. International Social Science Journal, 48(149), 349-364.

8. Monem, M., & Rahman, M. M. (2013). Corruption in Bangladesh: A Study on the Attitudes of the Civil Servants and the Politicians. (http://repository.library.du.ac.bd/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/276/Mohammad%20Masudur%20Rahman.pdf?sequence=1)

9. Slomczynski, K., & Shabad, G. (2012). Perceptions of political party corruption and voting behaviour in Poland. Party Politics, 18(6), 897-917.

Great Answers! to change would require a paradigm change. Corrupt or not, politics is very positional and power centered.

If a country is to be corruption free and become a nation of beautiful minds, I strongly feel there are three key societal members who can make a difference. They are the father, the mother and the teacher. - A. P. J. Abdul Kalam

I would say that if politicans are real representatives of political movements in any country, they become much more open and collaborative one another.

First of all if we want politics to create mostly positive impacts, things have to change from start to finish. Everyday political issues are on the news and something bad always happens. Corruption, lack of interest, lying, stealing, everything happens every day and even though polititians find a thousand ways to combat those claims, we all know they are true but nothing ever happens to them. In a perfect world, a polititian is supposed to be the representative of what people want and need. A polititian should be a respected and respectful person whose actions would create ennormous impacts not only on a given location but also on a macro level. Unfortunately we don't live in that world just yet, as polititians only care about their (big!!) salaries at the end of the month, without doing much. The vast majority don't work as much as they should and it is reflected on societies. Instead of peaceful debates we face riots, aggressions and instability. So, if all polititians would work together, and I mean work as much as we researchers do everyday, I believe results would be different for the best and we could see bigger changes for the best. There's so much to discussed here, but my opinion is simple: people should earn according to what they work, not for what role they have.

That is so true Kamal. We never see a politician in India say NO for anything. But does nothing for the people.

Their YES is a symbol of their projection of appropriateness (legitimacy) for the job in the eye of the electorate. With this common goal in view they exchange notes with one another. They think public memory is very short, and no one seek accountability from them for the promises made!

Kamal and Nages, you have said/endorsed something so true. Very thoughtful!

If we adopt the concept of an open society, then politicians must be open too. But I think that our societies are not so open and transparent, so our politicians are also secrecy. Many times a secret agenda exists and politicians (since they know it) they are forced to hide the truth in order to re-elected by people.

There is always a hidden agenda with every political move.

We may also be responsible as the following translation from Sanskrit Sloka (poem) says

as the land so the [ground] water, as the seed so the sprout.

as the region [country] so the language, as the king so the people.

http://blog.practicalsanskrit.com/2010/01/like-father-like-son-yatha-raja-tatha.html

Perhaps unfortunately only when a full-fledged, common enemy arises, an even bigger than "very big" problem, resolved hopefully and quickly however by the 'good guys.'

Also, before there was so much gridlock and polarization between political parties, big oil campaign funding made little headlines. That alone I believe is the source of secrecy and lack of collaboration or any leadership.

For all.

.

Sorry Sylantyev and others, but will counteract the way the question was placed and most of the other answers. The degree of openness of the political and / or the degree of corruption does not depend on the will of politicians.

.

The man has not changed in character over the centuries, just when there is a greater degree of transparency is not the will of individual politicians, but the enhancement mechanisms of government and non-governmental mechanisms country.

.

Transparency and disseminating acts of corruption, if not accompanied by mechanisms of public control becomes a genuine catharsis mechanism that satisfies initially popular anxiety, but ends in a mere change gang members.

If only the disclosure of acts of corruption with the change of the corrupt gang, only serves to posterioriores revelations of the excesses of the new gang.

.

This does not strengthen democracy, simply creates an impression as Costas Drossos "The problem with politicians it is not this. A big percentage of them they are corrupted.... ", this impression can lead people to disillusion with representative democracy with two possible paths, isolate less economical influential part of the population or search for another constitutional solution to the problem.

.

I am extremely skeptical of the practical results of increasing the degree of transparency in politics in countries where democracy is young, ie the vast majority of the time is availed to exchange political gang in the looting of the country.

.

Many of the structures that are theoretically increasing the transparency of the political system, such as business groups press are not promoting transparency as to reduce corruption, but are more interested in promoting the exchange of gang over to another according to their interests.

.

They will when they think its important and they can earn their benefit from it. But, if its valued nothing for them, then they will not go further.

I weep for the liberty of my country when I see at this early day of its successful experiment that corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for promises of office.-Andrew Jackson (1767-1845), 7th US President

Interest connected politicians of different party affiliation and ideology. Yes, that is corruption in the matter. As in my country, I believe that in your newspapers on the front page, in the headline news, there are the corrupted politicians! Scandal of the day! Almost every day!

http://whatwouldborgendo.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/yeo-borgen-fix-our-allegedly-corrupt-politicians/

“It is said that every people has the Government it deserves. It is more to the point that every Government has the electorate it deserves; for the orators of the front bench can edify or debauch an ignorant electorate at will. Thus our democracy moves in a vicious circle of reciprocal worthiness and unworthiness”. - George Bernard Shaw

.

Dear sirs.

.

I'll ask a question to everyone. In the place of centralize the criticism of politicians that are regularly displaced from their positions or by vote or by popular revolts, why not consider a little the other side of the coin, the corrupters. The corrupters are decades bribing politicians and little is said of them.

.

Would only be responsible for political corruption? Or should we think of those who in exchange for parties or even more revolutionary changes are ready on the other side to provide favors and bribes to politicians?

.

Exchanging one group receiving bribes by another solves nothing, because in the beginning of the government however well intentioned they are politicians they gradually yielding to temptation. Younger democracies are in the first or second round of exchange of corrupt, now the oldest are now in decades this process, with a small difference in time crude and obvious corruption is being replaced by more sophisticated and less apparent, but the result is the same.

.

I think most of us agree that some form of representation beats a dictator , that power corrupts, that human beings get things wrong, that human's tend to think about themselves first, etc. So given the contradiction of wanting representative government but that representatives may have all of the bad characteristics I list above, what is the answer?

@Paul

.

Perhaps a clue about this, the infrastructure of political parties.

.

Let's assume that the more traditional democracies of the western world, USA, England and France their present statesmen in the past have been idealistic, consistent and upright people, but in order to achieve a position that would allow them to contest the evidence to the positions they occupy had to bargain internally to support the most diverse groups, and within these groups certainly hundreds existiem people with profiles not compatible with the candidate

.

In conclusion, to take power, even being idealistic, consistent and honest that is a ruler he will be surrounded by opportunistic, manipulative and dishonest.

I've never seen a scholarly work that technically analyze the trajectory and the concessions that should make any politician in order to achieve command of the executive power, the internal structures of political parties and the influences of these economic groups is never an issue discussed at length.

.

On the other hand, is very individualized personal aspect of each ruler, but everyone forgets that since the etymology of the word party ("part, portion, side," from Old French partie "side, part, portion, share; separation, division "(12c.), literally" that Which is divided, "- Online Etymology Dictionary) any elected politician he represents a part of society and this part does not necessarily represent 100% of those who elected him.

.

How do politicians become much more open and collaborative with one another? is a difficult question @Sylantyev from power ship search and ego-centrism of each of them!! May be they could meet in very urgent periods or on crisis, but with in head their positions from leadership or the search of it. May be the response is never to be collaborative for the purpose of the nation, with the equation of power in face of them!!

Agree @Kamal, further more :

http://whatwouldborgendo.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/yeo-borgen-fix-our-allegedly-corrupt-politicians/

More about politics and corruption! Problem identified, solutions given!!!

http://www.transparency.org/topic/detail/politics_and_government

Politicians become much more open and collaborative with one another because of common interests.

Well said, respected Prof. kamal, I endorse your answer.