That is all very true. I never claimed it's only certain types of politicians who are at fault.

However, there is a difference between career politicians in democracies - who can join/leave politics from the academic world or media or any number of professions and go back to it later - and leaders representing cultural, national traits who inherit their position, lead a revolution to gain it or simply crown themselves for life. This latter part of 'politicians' are prevalent in certain parts of the world and unfortunately, sit on most of the world's oil reserves, which construes our (and our governments) dealings with them.

What about Caroline Lucas? She is honest, does it cos she cares about green issues. I think the bigger party, the more the issues cross over and their principles less obvious, they are more likley to be corrupt as they have no real beliefs.

Evidently quite a few people get killed/ injured due to this.

Yes. I think those who inherit leadership in non democracies are far more corrupt.

Those who go into one issue parties are more likely than not to do it through belief they can change things. That said they also know they have no influence. As soon as they do get influence then they will also allow themselves to be corrupt and will sell out.

Didn't the Greens implode in the mid\late 80's under Parkin and the idea of Elitist Villages, similar to William Morris's(?) idea at the beginning of the Century?

In a strange twist Morris was quoted on FISO the other day.

Hitler certainly got into politics to change people's lives.

I'd say he succeeded in most people's cases.

Lenin as well. And Pol Pot.

I'd hardly call them honest and free from corruption though.

Napoleon wasn't that bad internally, but took his megalomania abroad