Public Service or Public Privilege?
I’ve been thinking about pensions.
In Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum has proposed capping very large pensions for former high-level officials. Some reportedly received close to a million pesos a month. The proposal would limit them to about 70,000 pesos monthly — still comfortable, but no longer extraordinary.
This isn’t just about numbers.
It’s about principle.
What is public service supposed to mean?
In Canada, Members of Parliament can receive pensions that average around $80,000 a year. Meanwhile, many seniors live on $20,000 to $25,000 annually through CPP and OAS. That gap isn’t illegal. It isn’t hidden. But it raises questions.
It’s the distance.
The distance between those who govern and those who count every dollar.
And then I think of José Mujica.
Before becoming president, he was a guerrilla fighter in the 1960s. He was imprisoned for nearly 14 years — much of that time in solitary confinement under Uruguay’s military dictatorship. He endured isolation, harsh conditions, and psychological strain. He later said he survived by talking to ants and imagining conversations in his mind.
After prison, he didn’t pursue wealth. He returned to farming.
As president, he chose to live on his small rural property, where he and his wife grew flowers — including carnations — and vegetables. He drove an old Volkswagen Beetle. He donated about 90% of his presidential salary.
He rejected the presidential palace.
Not because he had to.
Because he believed power should not distance leaders from ordinary people.
One of his most quoted reflections was:
“Poor people are not those who have little. They are those who need infinitely more.”
That idea lingers.
This conversation isn’t about punishment. It’s about alignment. About solidarity. About whether leadership should reflect the lived reality of the majority.
Should the highest public pensions mirror the economic reality of ordinary citizens?
Or should our focus be on ensuring no senior lives on $20,000 a year?
Maybe both.
Perhaps the real measure of a country is not how comfortably its leaders retire — but how securely its most vulnerable citizens live.
Public office is a responsibility. Not a reward.
And maybe the richest leaders are the ones who need the least.
Reflective Questions
- What does “public service” mean to you?
- Should elected officials retire with benefits significantly higher than the average citizen?
- Does a leader’s personal lifestyle influence your trust in them?
- Is solidarity symbolic — or should it be structural?
- What would economic dignity look like for everyone, not just those in power?
No comments:
Post a Comment