By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

Sometimes I worry that my columns present too negative a picture of politics and government.

I'm concerned that my writing might suggest that I don't admire public servants or believe that many of the elected officials are well-meaning, committed people who care and do good.

I believe in the system and I believe in many of the elected officials.

I believe politics is a wonderful sport and in the end, does more good than bad.

I also believe that things could be better.

But please don't let my frequent criticism of government, politics and politicians be anything more than a statement that we should collectively strive to do better and encourage our elected officials to do better. They are imperfect - as are we.

By way of explanation, the difference I have with many of the elected officials comes with the turf. The press has an obligation to keep government honest. Political columnists have an obligation to point out the pitfalls and shortcomings of those in power.

And so, with great frequency, I criticize the job being done while believing in (many of) those who are serving.

I've explained previously that I was raised in a Democratic home by active Democrats - dad was a state committeeman and my uncle a player in the party in Queens. I was on the periphery or pretty close to the middle for much of my life.

Politics is a tough game.

And I understand how the party leaders have to exert control and protect their turf.

However, I also believe there is an overriding obligation to first serve the people and democracy. The two are not antithetical.

Preserving and building party power is much more effective if providing good government is the primary mission. I think it is not only possible but the true duty of the party. I understand however, in the craziness of election-time and taking care of party insiders, how easy it is to lose sight of the mission of serving the people and providing for quality government.

Bringing new and quality people into government may be riskier from a power point of view for party insiders, than promoting the old from within, but certainly the preferable way to build future government. I dare say, it also builds future party leaders. In Queens, the Democrats almost always fall in line behind the party leaders. There is really no threat to leadership by allowing the Primary process to be competitive and permitting the people to pick the candidates.

However, with great frequency, we witness the party's heavy-handed tactics to protect insiders or hand-picked loyalists from having elections. We wonder if these hand-picked folks are more competent than other aspiring office seekers. We wonder if party members - Democratic voters - would choose the hand-picked candidates if given a real choice. And seriously wonder whether government or the party for that matter, is better off by avoiding a fair election.

Tactics like concealing the fact that Ivan Lafayette was not seeking reelection to the Assembly and allowing him to circulate petitions, deceive the people, then have a tiny group of party insiders name the new candidate is antithetical to democratic government. Then turning around and bringing the impressive force of the party and the law firm, which is part and parcel of the operation, to knock the opposition off the ballot and exhaust her resources, adds insult to injury.

The party insiders have given the people Michael Den Dekker. He has not had to meet the people, make his case and win an election. Yet, come the next term, he will be Assemblyman Den Dekker. Sadly, the party will need to be there again in two years because their questionable tactics have assured him of a primary in a dynamic and changing district. As a matter of fact, the likelihood for Den Dekker to keep winning this seat is dependent totally on someone using up an awful lot of favors in redistricting to prevent this seat from going to a minority.

Why would the party want to do that?

What was accomplished by putting Den Dekker in office and and knocking Marlene Tapper off the ballot?

A show of strength and the election of a one or maybe two term Assemblymember.

Not so long ago, the party maneuvered to send Barry Grodenchik - a good guy - to the Assembly. They were successful but Barry couldn't hold a seat whose population was overwhelmingly of Asian ethnicity.

I suggest it is about to happen again and Mike Den Dekker is another square peg in a very large and diverse ethnic round hole. The Assemblymember and the party candidtate should be chosen by the people not the insiders.

The ultimate victor would be a good party member and the ultimate winner would be the people.

MSchenkler@QueensTribune.com