Democracy...
May. 29th, 2002 09:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robinblokeAs Homer once said "When will people learn...Democracy doesn't work"
Back to this again, and I've probably said all this before but there you go, I need a semi-brain dump; I've been thinking (sometimes miracles happen) about society and democracy, this isn't entirely due to the vote going on in the RP-society I'm in, my general dismay at the state of the nation, nay, world, politically has also been slow broiling over an open flame with just a hint of salt for a little while now.
Organisation and structure, a single figurehead; I did have a point I was going to make a moment ago but now it's slipped away. Damn ice patches.
Erm, damn, Democracy; righty, summary, unimpressed with said political organisation for several reasons; 1) Central figurehead and decision orchastrator who is essentially fighting a popularity contest with the media 2) Popular, not compentent people get voted. 3) Voter apathy 4) Rival parties and the automatic gainsaying of anything the current institution says because they're not in office, not to mention constant attempts to have officials kicked out of office for any reason they can think of 5) People assigned to manage and direct a field for an entire country who may have no prior experience or clue as to that field at all 6) Policy turnaround and all-change, new vote, new policies, everything else gets swept under the rug or changed. There are probably more.
What then; I'm coming to the idea/decision that the only sound policy for a system of country management is a sectionalised body of 12 (number that seems to work) experts (don't ask me how they're selected yet) for each relevant part of the country. Each section could either be voted on (possibly not my personal preference) or a rotational system whereby new members are slowly shuffled in and out. This has the advantage that each section of the country could have a different "directional" policy (left/right) depending on how these people are selected rather than a single package selection of what the country needs under one party label.
Bleh, thats it for now.
Back to this again, and I've probably said all this before but there you go, I need a semi-brain dump; I've been thinking (sometimes miracles happen) about society and democracy, this isn't entirely due to the vote going on in the RP-society I'm in, my general dismay at the state of the nation, nay, world, politically has also been slow broiling over an open flame with just a hint of salt for a little while now.
Organisation and structure, a single figurehead; I did have a point I was going to make a moment ago but now it's slipped away. Damn ice patches.
Erm, damn, Democracy; righty, summary, unimpressed with said political organisation for several reasons; 1) Central figurehead and decision orchastrator who is essentially fighting a popularity contest with the media 2) Popular, not compentent people get voted. 3) Voter apathy 4) Rival parties and the automatic gainsaying of anything the current institution says because they're not in office, not to mention constant attempts to have officials kicked out of office for any reason they can think of 5) People assigned to manage and direct a field for an entire country who may have no prior experience or clue as to that field at all 6) Policy turnaround and all-change, new vote, new policies, everything else gets swept under the rug or changed. There are probably more.
What then; I'm coming to the idea/decision that the only sound policy for a system of country management is a sectionalised body of 12 (number that seems to work) experts (don't ask me how they're selected yet) for each relevant part of the country. Each section could either be voted on (possibly not my personal preference) or a rotational system whereby new members are slowly shuffled in and out. This has the advantage that each section of the country could have a different "directional" policy (left/right) depending on how these people are selected rather than a single package selection of what the country needs under one party label.
Bleh, thats it for now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Who selects the experts?
Date: 2002-05-29 02:32 am (UTC)I dunno.
Re: Who selects the experts?
Date: 2002-05-29 02:45 am (UTC)Qualifications and intelligence unfortunately don't always indicate that the person isn't a) Insane b) Power mad c) Something else undesireable or even d) Holds a view that we (as the benevolent political creators that we are) neccessarily agree with.
Best thing I could think of for the selection of people for the different decision bodies would be representatives from the appropriate academic fields, but that is a minefield of old boys networks...
Politics, it's lose, lose.
Well, yes.
Date: 2002-05-29 02:53 am (UTC)Unfortunately a) I don't want the job so I don't see why my clones would and b) they'd be a load of slackers.
Oh well, back to the drawing board...
no subject
Date: 2002-05-29 03:15 am (UTC)Something like this was tried after the Chilean coup. Economists (graduates of the Chicago Business School) were charged with guiding the economy. Their success was mixed - by some measures the policy was held to have succeeded, and indeed it was emulated by Margaret Thatcher - but notably the average wage hasn't yet recovered to the levels before they took charge twenty years ago.
Putting experts in charge is a very dangerous thing to try.