In France in last year the law was changed to prevent political representatives from having cumulative mandates – preventing Députés (Members of Parliament) from undertaking political roles at other levels concurrently; be that mayoral roles of the role of a European parliamentarian.  The debate surrounding this had been running  for several years, prior to the law being passed and is considered a big issue in France, especially given that it affected a majority of both French  Députés and Senators – in 2012 82% of Députés and 77% of Senators had multiple mandates!  The scale of multiple mandates is certainly larger in France than in other European countries (where it was at or below 20% for the same period) , yet perhaps the question of multiple responsibilities is wider than simply political positions.

A political mandate is described as “the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory”.  It follows then that the role of the elected representative would be to ensure that the mandate be followed, thus representing the needs and desires of the electorate (even if only in line with their announced policies)…  It is easy to see how this might become an issue in the case of someone who is charged with multiple mandates… for every politician that has two mandates, we can infer that there are also two (separate) electorates which must be represented and it is not possible for both to take precedence at the same time.  Further complications could ensure in the event that the desires of the respective electorate are diametrically opposed – something which is a possibility when considering national mandates to local mandates.  In such circumstances then, a decision needs to be made between the two – which invariably will result in one of the two electorates not being properly represented.  On which note, it strikes me that a failure of this nature to represent the electorate equates to a dereliction of duty on the part of the representative… no?

Of course, this example uses an extreme situation where the declared policies for two mandates are opposed – yet there are other situations which could equally cause such a conflict in mandate: notably (in a Party Political situation) pressure from political party, which can encourage a representative to vote in line with the political party rather than the specific needs of the electorate.  Alongside which there is also the very obvious possibility for conflict of availability… if the representative is doing something for one of their mandates, can they be doing something for the other mandate at the same time?

The prospect of not actually having enough time to effectively discharge the responsibilities of multiple mandates leads us to question whether or not the issue is a question of multiple mandates, or rather a question of whether or not anyone is capable of doing more than one job at a time.

I would argue, that regardless of whether or not cumulative mandates engender conflict between the jobs, any political representative should be duty bound to be in a position to ensure that they can devote the time necessary to fulfilling the required function – and that this should not be subject to their ‘other job’ getting in the way.  Sadly, the excuse that passes for a formal job description for UK Members of Parliament makes absolutely no reference to whether or not the position is full or part-time, nor what the expectation is in terms of hours to be worked.  Yet even so, is it not possible for us to conclude that being a political representative is a full-time job?

The stated purpose of a politician is to “Represent, defend and promote national interests and further the needs and interests of constituents wherever possible.” Leaving aside the evident contempt for the electorate contained in the final two words of this job purpose,  the importance and sensitivity of the role seems quite clear, and as such I would argue that it logically requires a dedicated and concentrated focus in order to be properly fulfilled.   This being the case, it is only right that we ensure that all representatives are provided with the conditions necessary to complete the job – and since the acceptance of any additional responsibilities on the part of the representative would threaten their effectiveness for the initial mandate, it behoves us to proscribe that possibility.

If on the other hand the role of a politician is such that it does not require the full attention of the individual, then surely the position should be officially re-classified as a part-time role and the pay and benefits appropriately re-aligned?

For my part, I would prefer that my elected representative is able to devote themselves fully to the task of representing their electorate; I do not want my needs to be confused with other responsibilities such as a pressing court case that needs to be prepared (Geoffrey Cox), a board meeting of the company for which they are a director (Sir Edward Davey) or indeed a newspaper column that needs to be submitted (most of them at some point).

(Not to mention of course that in a country of 3 million unemployed – having people do more than one full-time job at a time whilst others look for work is just plain silly! – and before anyone says anything, the only qualifications needed to be a parliamentarian are being a British or Commonwealth Citizen and being over the age of 18!)