Presidents are not God

Presidents in a democracy emerge from among the people of a nation. They get compensated for their -hopefully- outstanding service to society with money, offices, secretaries, and body protection along with a designated pension scheme. The power of the people is invested in them to perform on their behalf.

During their time in office, they do not have to take any money from anyone even not for giving speeches, writing articles and books as all this is seen as a package deal sealed at the polling station. In corrupt societies, Presidents break this seal and open up their bank accounts to welcome fresh air.

Based on the performance demonstrated normal humans become at the heart of power a hero person sometimes likes to be worshiped. After all the great good things they had performed, it must still be regarded as a great service to the nation. Especially in developing countries that live and fight for party politics and tribalism instead of using values, the future of the society, and a clear understanding of what is right, what is wrong, and what is in the best interest of the nation Presidents are seen like God sitting on a high throne above their heads.

Former President of Ghana, John Dramani Mahama, during his presidency opened a small national cemetery and gave the order all future Presidents should be buried there. This seems to follow the black mentality of misunderstanding the role of the President of a Democracy. When a President is dead he is no longer the procession of the state but falls back into the blossom of his family. He becomes a private yet still public figure, not more no less. Such a national cemetery is in developed democracies nowhere to be found.

Presidents in any society after leaving office still often behind the scene work on behalf of the new administration or conclude unfinished work. For this, they get an office, secretary, driver, car, and body protection besides enjoying their state pension. All are paid for by the state.

In their time in old age spend writing books, attending conferences, and giving interviews. Any President entering office as a "poor" man most often after leaving office will be a rich man by these means yet the costs paid to maintain the glory of a former President are still to be paid for by society.

This once more opens up the debate about whether or not societies must demand from their top leaders to be rich before sitting in high office and scrapping all needed government support. Poor people could be challenged to open a private enterprise, gaining massive experience and a fighting spirit before entering the races in politics most certainly beneficiary to the nation. In developing countries, this could potentially limit the corruption level.

Instead of paying consultancy fees to a former President only when he goes out on behalf of the nation to solve conflicts or promote the national economy society constantly supports him by providing administrative and logistic support. Even in e.g. Germany this is not mandated by law but constant practice by parties' constant consent.

The conclusion is that sustaining a former President is by the taxpayer his private and public made income is for himself after tax, often massively income. This gives especially in developing countries the former Presidents a position in the heads and minds of the people that make them seem like a God on the thrones over their humble heads and constitutional power that is only invested in the hands of the electorate.