I point this out because our society often denounces politics but enshrines democracy. Yet no one can logically explain the difference between the two. It's a fascinating cognitive dissonance. Perhaps you can explain?
While there are second-order effects, politicians are largely free to ignore aforementioned "will" during their day-to-day routine. Thus they generally spend time manuvering and manipulating for an increase in personal power - which is what we call "politics".
"Politics" exits even without "democracy". It exists in dictatorships, in offices, even within families.
It is therefore completely correct to enshrine democracy while denouncing politics. Does this make sense? :-)
EDIT: When I say families - I am referring to "joint families" (large family groups consisting of a matriach/patriach and multiple sons/daughters/uncles/aunts and sundry). While this is not un-common in India - I felt I'd better explain it to everyone else.
As a reader of hacker news, I assume you like to think of yourself as a person of science and reason. But when you summon phrases such as "will of the people" you have left that world. The phrase is empty - it provides no information, and contributes nothing to the discussion. Would you mind more precisely defining what you mean by "will of the people"?
"A majority of British voters cast votes for Gordon Brown under the expectation that he would manage the economy, and that's all. Instead he used his role to grab power, at the expense of the people"
Is this a fair paraphrasing?
I can then rephrase your original sentence:
"Democracy is when elected officials act in a way that voters approve of. Politics is when elected officials act in their own self interest, in a way contrary to what voters want"
Is that it? Or let me try a second, different, way of paraphrasing:
"Democracy is when elected officials act in a way that benefits the public good ( whether the public realizes it or not). Politics is when an elected official acts in a way the benefits himself, regardless of the public good"
Is one of these summaries fair? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to nail down precisely what you are trying to say.
He's trying to say he doesn't like Gordon Brown.
re: your original point, I think in this context, by 'Democracy' people mean "honest politicians working towards ends they think their constituents would approve" and by 'Politics' people mean "politicians doing (probably dirty) work, driven by all kinds of pressures, often self-interested ones".
It's a difference in intent. To some extent it's the difference between murder and manslaughter. Or perhaps between murder and execution.
Large chunks of the UK media have had it in for him following some initial mis-steps (the will he/won't he election-call thing comes to mind).
As far as I can tell, their story then became the self-fulfilling "he's a lame duck who can't manage the media".
I don't like a lot of things the Labour govt (Blair and Brown) have done/are doing, but I don't think Brown stands out an as example of political self-interest.
Gordon Brown became Prime Minister after Tony Blair resigned - he hasn't called a General Election yet.