This is a thing. In US and Europe expert performs a service to politician. Experts, lobbyists normally stay in shadows not readily exposed to the public (only as authors of books, articles, occasional interviews etc.). You need a politician then to put all those theories and analysis into a simple language to influence ordinary people (voters) and spice it up with a personal charm.

Politician should not be an expert. He should be first of all a good listener. He should listen voters and he should listen experts and with experts form policies that voters would accept and follow. He should be able to explain to voters what and why he or she is doing.

I don’t think expert should go to politics. We could probably trace the institution of “experts” to Plato and Confucius they both came up with theories on how state should be governed they both had some degree of success providing advices on how state should be run. But both failed miserable when they tried to get more involved in that matters.

I just think it is different kinds of skills. Expert deals with “informed” people he does not have to and usually hates (and really bad at it) to explain “obvious” things. General population does not want to stay informed and, unfortunately, has a very short attention span (at least in US there is an opinion that people are brought up this way on purpose). Emotions dominate logic. So when talking to electorate expert quite often becomes either anal and really boring or really obnoxious.

Also for politics to work (in western sense) you need also separate completely executive and legislative branches. Meaning that bureaucrat can be a politician and politician can be a bureaucrat but not at the same time.

forgot to log in

Вопрос не по теме.
Есть такой пользователь "гуралюк"(guralyuk), который образует бесконечные "научные" сообщества.
Он из Беларуси, затем бежал в прибалтику, теперь, насколько я понимаю ситуацию, сидит там и строит козни против "режима" Лукашенко (возможно на западные деньги).
Свои "экспертные" сообщества в ЖЖ он очищает безжалостно - возможно потому что демонстрирует их заказчикам - и банит не за ругань или грубость, но за попытки политической дискуссии с позиций, не вписывающихся в евфемизм "европейской интеграции", объявленный темой его LJ communities.

ВОПРОС: прав ли я, или мое прочтение гуралюки совершенно ошибочно, или, например, мое прочтение в целом верно, но тексты гуралюки могут представлять интерес, т.к. в них есть недоступные иначе факты и т.д.
КАК ВЫ ПОНИМАЕТЕ ГУРАЛЮКА?