Democracy: Success or Failure

[Drogue]

Originally posted by C0ckney
oh good lord, now we've got someone arguing for 'enlightend' despotism

More for democracy but with longer terms. Like 10 years, rather than 4. I don't see why a democratically elected leader is necessarily any better chosen than one that isn't. I think a council of elected people could choose a better ruler than the people as a whole, kinda going with what the US Founding Fathers said.

[Q Classic]

compared to life under my rule, it's a failure. compared to everything else, it's a success.

[Spiffor]

I too agree with longer terms. Most terms are way too short for any long-term planning, and as such, the politicians are reduced to more or less a role of managers of the country.

In the US, the situation is even worse with major elections every two years, making the political elite being in a campaign almost 100% of the time.

However, unlike Drogue, I don't believe at all in a technocracy. Who gets to decide who is "able" or not? Who gets to write the tests any would be ruler would have to pass?
I can't know the names, but I can already tell you these would be biased people, with their own perception of what's true and what's right (for example, the test might include questions on economic science, showing the bias of the testers in believing there is any truth in economic science).

If we are to have biased people to choose our rulers, let these biased people be everyone

OTOH, despite being in favor of longer terms, I'm strongly in favor of a massive use of referenda. In today's world, referenda are the only way to really associate the people to their collective fate.

[C0ckney]

but that misses the point, it's not (and shouldn't be) about who would do the job best, but who the people want to do the job. i like short term limits because they let the people have their say more often, which can only be a good thing.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by C0ckney
but that misses the point, it's not (and shouldn't be) about who would do the job best, but who the people want to do the job.

This is where I disagree. Democracy should only marginally be about who does the job. It should first and foremost be about what the job is.
In today's democracy, the people only have a say about who gets the job. They don't have a direct say on what are the objectives and the decisions to be taken, except in the reare occurences of the referenda.

[CerberusIV]

Democracy is the best of an imperfect range of options. It would be better if politicians were strictly liable for their pre-election promises and were thrown out of office if they didn't deliver those promises within the timescale they said they would.

[Patroklos]

Hey,

Democracy is okay, but like most thinks that are good in theory we muck up in practice. Mass elections are what mess up democracy. Ie, nobody wants to do what is good for the state as a whole, but what is good for them. Hence we end up with welfare states and special interests.

The solution, which was actually in the original theory of all the modern democracies, is reduced electorate. Sufferage is free, and thus by definition worthless. I personely believe government service is needed to vote. Not just military, but any government service. I am not saying that everyone else is crap, they have all the rights under the law except the ability to vote. And why should they, they decided to stay in the private sector and work soley for their own benefit. Most governemt employees could be making alot more money in the private sectoer (ie me, so maybe I am biased ), so besides some of the more patriotic reasons people serve, they also take a finacial hit. The catch, there has to be some form of service available to everyone so that if they want to serve they can. Just expand the reserves. Of course the years of service required would depend on the job.

This could be implememted in many ways. Doctors voluntarily charging government regualted resticted charges ofr patiets for so many years to get sufferage. Many more experianced pubilc defenders. And if these people don't want to take the career or financial hit, well obviosly if you only care about yourself you shouldn't be voting. How about having a list of approved volunteer and charity networks, and make bieng a member of one of these a prerequisite as well. We could make the board that decite these things be both voters and non-voters, so we don't get a tyranny. And remember, the largest contibuter to voters would be the enlisted military and service government funcions like postal, police and fire. These are not the rich folks.

Point bieng we need to reduce the electorite, but the means most original democratic thinkers advocated were not adequate, ie race, sex, class, etc. I don't hold this against them, they were from a different time and in the theories infancy. I think merit and service are much better choices to divide the voting/non-voting population.

True democracy, with its mass voting or Repubic style, just can't work in societies as large as ours. Athens found this out and they ran only a city, and not even with true mass voting!

Just an idea, I think if we wish to preserve democracy we have to be inovative. Democracy has to chage, just like everything else.

-Pat

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
It would be better if politicians were strictly liable for their pre-election promises and were thrown out of office if they didn't deliver those promises within the timescale they said they would.

It is a possible option, but it was rejected in the 18-19th century when the political elite were crafting the system. The liberal democracies we live in have similar arguments than today's calls for technocracy: it believed the people was unable to rule itself effectively, and that's why we ended up being free of choosing our rulers, but certainly not our policies.

[Whaleboy]

I second Drogue.

I mean a technocracy to mean government run by a computer (and me having written the programme ). Seriously, the programs would be elected, though you can of course remove democracy with a technologicla dictator, democracy does have certain advantage, particularly when it's as ambiguous as possible.

Say you have an economic decision? Whose opinion do you value more? A prominent economist, or the consensus of a million lay people? I choose the former.

[Sandman]

Democracy is great. Just look at the Borg.

[rah]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The solution, which was actually in the original theory of all the modern democracies, is reduced electorate. Sufferage is free, and thus by definition worthless. I personely believe government service is needed to vote. Not just military, but any government service.

Sorry I had to laugh. If you did this, the government would pander to...............the government. What politician would ever propose reducing government? Government would spiral out of control as it continued to feed itself more and more pork.
The government would becomes it's own aristocracy, where everyone not in it would become second class.

I don't think that is the answer, but thanks for brightening my day.

[Whaleboy]

Gotta agree with rah there.

We also need far more open government.... open source technocracy!!

[aaglo]

Worst is the government which is based on popularity of the people. - Pierre Corneille

According to the democrats, justice is to do what is good for the majority - Aristoteles

[Andemagne]

failure. the most Wise should rule.

[Az]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Diss:
Technocracy is a regime where unelected people get to power through passing tests. What is required is not being elected by the people, but to have the skills deemed necessary to rule a country.

Technocracy is not necessarily a police state. As a matter of fact, the only blatant technocracy that I'm aware of (the EU) is stringent on human rights. It simply doesn't associate the people at all in the political process. The actors of the political process are those the most skilled for it, according to their view.

I second Drogue.

I mean a technocracy to mean government run by a computer (and me having written the programme ). Seriously, the programs would be elected, though you can of course remove democracy with a technologicla dictator, democracy does have certain advantage, particularly when it's as ambiguous as possible.

Say you have an economic decision? Whose opinion do you value more? A prominent economist, or the consensus of a million lay people? I choose the former.

I am a technocrat. But I am at the same time a democrat. How is it possible? I believe that by educating all the people in a fair level of knowledge that is needed to make decisions, as well as having very intellingent, and knowledgeable people decide. those people will be elected, however.

The technocracy will allow for greater efficiency, while strong democratic rules will ensure that this will benefit all of society.

[Whaleboy]

Azazel:

[Az]

Why thank you, Whaleboy.

some good reading on the subject.

http://www.technocracyinc.org/MainIndex.htm

[C0ckney]

it's all pie in the sky though, it sounds good but completely ignores the world we live in.

coming back to spiffor's point, i'm not exactly sure what you are saying. you can't give everyone a right to vote on every issue directly, we're not in ancient athens. so how would give people more of a say in what our leaders do?

[Whaleboy]

The world we live in sucks, and the best we can do is to ignore it!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Say you have an economic decision? Whose opinion do you value more? A prominent economist, or the consensus of a million lay people? I choose the former.

I'd trust the common sense of a layman anytime before an economist if I was to take an economic decision. Are you acquainted with economic science? It is a purely theoretical model that is not comparable to reality, but the economists grow to believe it has value for the real world.

From a purely technical point of view, the two worst atrocities comitted by economic science are:
- the general premise that people are rational. People's irrationality is marginally taken into account (in the preferences), but the mechanics of economy remain 'pure' once the irrationality has been put in its box .
- the absolute causalities. In any serious soft science, the "laws" are probabilistic, and do not pretend to predict every conduct. In economy, OTOH, effect A will trigger effect B, and then effect C with a 100% certitude

A layman has an infinitely better grasp of reality than the average economist, and the common man would be better of not to have economists decide his fate. The only thing economists are good for is statistics.

[Az]

I agree with Spiffor. But just because the science of Economics is flawed, it doesn't mean that it can't be fixed. It will be fixed. We all know economists are very often wrong. But once economics will be approached as a technological field, a field that is constructive in it's essence, rather than observatory, then will the change come.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by C0ckney
coming back to spiffor's point, i'm not exactly sure what you are saying. you can't give everyone a right to vote on every issue directly, we're not in ancient athens. so how would give people more of a say in what our leaders do?

There are two ways for making it realistic.
We're not in ancient Athens, and that's precisely why we can't have the agora anymore (where everybody gets a lengthy say about each issue), and we must organise so that decision making can be swift, efficient, and close to the wishes of the people. Of course, this means we can't have everybody debate and vote on each issue.

I have interned in the European Parliament, and I can tell with experience that voting on issues is a real full-time job. Even though we were 3 in my Rep's team, we simply had no time to have an informed opinion of each and every issue that was put to vote. Most often, we trusted the opinion of the party (more precisely, of the person in the party dealing with the issue).
We can't even imagine asking the people to do such a time-eating job. To delegate power is completely needed in any modern country; however, in our democracies, we delegate almost all of the power, which is too much.

I fundamentally think we should not be stripped of our right to decide the more important things. Sovereignty transfer to the EU? 35 hours workweek? Involvement in the Iraqi war? Abortion and gay marriage? I think all these decisions should be taken by the people directly, more than by only a tiny part of it.
OTOH, problems like max size of sewer pipes, max concentration of fats in chocolate, or taxation of videogames are the kind of deadly decisions that should be taken by our representatives, i.e. the specialists of decision making.

There are two ways to achieve this hope:
- To bind the winner of an election to his programme. If he ignores his campaign promises, he should be ousted (some rules, and a judiciary to enforce them, would be obviously needed to avoid mob control)
- To make a more massive use of referenda. Everybody says the Swiss model of referenda is broken, that nobody participates. This is a misconception. All those that are actually interested in the issue put to vote get to say their opinion. And that's what counts

These are two possible ways of strongly associating the people with their fate. It merely means that electing delegates is not the be-all end-all of democracy. Delegates are a necessary convenience in highly populated countries. But they are not the spirit of democracy

[Spiffor]

Azazel:
Economics may be redeemed if we purify it by fire

More seriously, this discipline is a massive one. It started on false premises, but muuuuuuuuch has been built on them. What you say is similar to: "We can make current religions useful if we can let them accept they started on the false premise of the existence of God"

Economics need a revolution, namely, not to be economics but rather an encompassing social science that extends the analysis of society to the specifics of the economical field. To put it bluntly, today's economics are full of ivory tower mathematicians - it should be full of actual observers/analysts.

[Az]

Nah. This is far from being correct. Today's economics departments are filled with behavioral psychologists, etc.

I don't like this.

The whole thing is based on private enterprise. People build factories with their money, WHILE WE WATCH.

The field of actually BUILDING an entire economy, it's extremely lacking.

Basically, it's has free market ideology as it's basis, and thus cannot be called a science.

A true economic science must fully understand proccesses, and be able to serve the needs of each and every way the society behaves: free enterprise, planned economy, etc.

[Whaleboy]

@Spiffor

I should add some degree of philosophy in there too, just like ethics and medicine

[C0ckney]

thanks for clarifying that spiffor

the problem(s) as i see it with what you say about referenda is how do you decide what issues get put before a direct vote. personally i would only want things which change the way we are governed (e.g. european constitution, house of lords reform etc.) to be put to a direct vote. putting things like foreign or economic policy directly to the people is just asking for trouble. what if an emergency arises, and dealing with it requires swift action on the part of the government. what if they are bound to hold a referendum on the issue before they can act?

i also think that switzerland is simply unique amoung nation states and that what works for them may not work for anyone else.

i would also be very much against legally binding a government to its promises, again what if an emergency arises which requires the breaking of a promise, what happens then? it's just too rigid. the best way of holding a government to account is and always will be through the ballot box.

don't get me wrong, i'm not saying any system is perfect but it needs fine tuning rather than a complete overhaul.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Diss:
Technocracy is a regime where unelected people get to power through passing tests. What is required is not being elected by the people, but to have the skills deemed necessary to rule a country.

As a matter of fact, the only blatant technocracy that I'm aware of (the EU) is stringent on human rights.

What test did that weirdo Chirac pass? Advanced Underwater Basketweaving?

[Az]

Spiffor: The EU isn't a technocracy.

[Drogue]

It is in some senses. The EU representatives with any power are all picked by their governments, not the people. The MEPs have little power.

Ghengis: He was talking about the EU, not individual member nations. EU representatives have been chosen by the government, not necessarily the people.

[Zevico]

Perhaps, Whaleboy, you should live in Syria and see how succesful other forms of government can be.
Technocracy sounds to me as if it can too easily be made into a dictatorship by just about anyone who reaches the 1st position of office.