"Freedom and Equality" are not easy to achieve, but they are absolutely necessary.

The most important thing that should motivate a 'politician' is to try to help 'implement' and 'protect' the 'freedom and equality' of all the individuals that constitute the 'governed'. Of course, that would be the case in a Democratic form of government. The reason that implementing Freedom and Equality can be a problem is basically, two fold. One aspect is that the transition between the 'abstract language', which we are all familiar with, and the implementation into actual 'results' can be difficult to achieve. The other aspect is that the Individual who occupies the Offices at the Top comes from the Bottom of government, and is also a human being and hence has the same human frailties. The former needs an Institutional base from which to establish a genuine realization of Freedom and Equality, and the latter, needs to practice the Freedom and Equality that s/he preaches when s/he runs for Office. Of course, there's always the politician that just doesn't care about results. But, we speak about a serious effort to implement a democratic result. In all cases, whether Institutional or Personal, we must 'descend' from language to results via legal requirements and social institutions. Often, on an Individual basis, the Individual holding Office does not 'see' the 'Other' human beings at the Bottom, as being as 'free' and 'equal' as s/he is. Hence, the 'political activity', s/he engages in is 'colored' by 'individual imperfections' that directly or indirectly proves harmful to the democratic Ideal. A perfect example of the 'failure' of 'institutional control' and 'individual control', is the condition called 'rioting'. Unfortunately, the term 'riot' already assumes a 'wrong assembly'. Continual use of the term by the media can only be a disservice, and contributes to 'escalation'. In such conditions, the only remedy would have been to have addressed the 'initiating impetus', immediately, at its inception, and to the satisfaction of the 'assembled'. Failure to do that, is a 'human failure', not an institutional failure, because the institutions provide means by which to address those issues. But, 'human kind' being what it is, ignores the original impetus. Once, there is escalation within the 'initiating impetus', there is a loss of control because 'Other individuals' will join the 'assembly' and 'change' the 'acceptable condition' into a 'riot', i.e., an unacceptable condition. Obviously, both conditions, the 'assembly' and the 'enforcement', can be excessive, and because both conditions can be 'peopled' by individuals who don't care about 'democracy' or 'freedom and equality', the conditions merely escalate and harm the Individuals who were not involved in the 'initial assembly' and the 'subsequent enforcement'. The problematic is, there are idiots on both sides of the dispute. From the human side, truly, human beings have the Right to 'assemble'; from the enforcement side, 'representatives' should 'listen' to the people, they're trying to tell you something, and they are entitled to a 'democratic resolution'.