Qualified politician vs. Celebrity politician

Questions for reflection:

What's your viewpoint on celebrities running in politics?

Will they damage the political arena?

Can we call celebrities who run for public office as ambitious amateurs?

         Qualified politicians refers to competent and skilled people in the legislative processes that govern our institution. They are members of a political institution previously elected and holding on to the office. On the other hand, A celebrity is any individual with a non-political basis for being well known, generally with good repute, popular to the public, and famous in their respected field; i.e. actor, singer, sports figure, famous family, war hero, etc. Party leaders refer to members of the respective party in high positions that control the fade and flow of party policy, members, and, at times, member policy (Gamson, 1994). These members may be party whips, chairman of the national committees, the respective leaders in the House and Senate, and the president. Political actors include PACs, generous high-profile campaign contributors, and other individuals or organizations that contribute to the electoral success of a candidate. 

           How do celebrities fit into this framework? Indeed possess many of the same qualities as skilled, experienced office-holders. According to J. Hosein (2004), by the virtue of their celebrity identity, they have mass personal appeal with the public (Mukherjee, 2004). Celebrities hold certain qualities that create them extra appropriate for candidateship than the average citizen. Similarly, they possessed strong curriculum vitae that provided and harboured electoral benefits (Monaco, 1978). J. Hosein (2004) added that apart from prior political experience and celebrity status, we can determine education, leadership roles, experiences from previous occupations, and recruitment and training by party organizations.

   PHILIPPINE CELEBRITY POLITICIANS

           Next, we will adopt David Cannon (1990) in his understanding of political amateurs. According by J. Hosein (2004), celebrity candidates are by nature amateur to political office-holding. Cannon categorizes amateur political candidates into two groups: ambitious amateurs who are serious about winning a seat, and experience-seeking amateurs who run for their own private utility. Those experience-seeking amateurs may run for several reasons including the experience for another electoral bid in the future or simply for the thrill of the chase.

           

           As J. Hosein (2004) mentions that these candidates have little hope of winning. It is my contention that all celebrities who run are ambitious amateurs. Cannon, like Roderick Banks and Jeffrey Kiewiet, argue that amateur motivations in running for office are based on as entertainers, astronauts, or athletes for whatever reason, make decisions to enter a House or Senate race utilizing rational choice from the beginning and have utility tradeoffs that are greater than the average candidate. According to J. Hosein (2004) a display of their eagerness for office is shown that of the 36 celebrities running in 2000, most were able to have fund raising money comparable to other serious contenders for the seat running for office. According to J. Hosein (2004), running for office for these ambitious celebrities is unique in the sense that they forego their celebrated professions for public office while most challengers seeking public office either retire from their private sector jobs or leave in pursuit of an office-holding position; however, the public naturally scrutinizes celebrities; motivations and their campaigns closely versus other races. Celebrities running for office are high. The decision to leave showbiz for public office could potentially damage both career paths in the occasion that the personality loses.