Politicians should not be able to escape every system they manage
Private alternatives can distance decision-makers from the consequences of public failure.
There is something uncomfortable about an official defending a deteriorating service while relying on an expensive alternative. The discomfort is reasonable. The proposed cure—forcing every politician and family member to use a designated school or hospital—is less straightforward. Accountability should bring officials closer to consequences without turning their children into instruments of policy.
Distance changes the debate
Someone who can quickly purchase an alternative may experience a service failure as an inconvenience rather than a crisis. That does not prove indifference, and personal experience is not a substitute for evidence. It does mean public decisions should include sustained contact with people who cannot opt out.
Families are not public property
A child may need a particular educational setting. A partner may have medical needs that are not the electorate's business. A blanket rule could also encourage symbolic participation while leaving the underlying service unchanged. Making an official stand in a queue once is not the same as making the institution work.
Demand consequences that matter
Require transparent service standards, public explanations for missed targets, and accessible meetings with users. Ask officials to disclose relevant conflicts without exposing private family records. Tie political judgment to what changed under their responsibility. Shared experience can sharpen attention, but the stronger demand is shared accountability: a failure that matters to residents must also matter to the people managing it.
Bring your perspective
Would mandatory use of public services improve leadership, or mainly create political theater?
Start a debate