New kinds of governments.
Discussion
andy_s]The political system is linked to so many questions it's difficult to know where to start. Philosophically Plato [Republic said:
is a good primer, prescient as it was and I'd say more relevant to modern society than for example the Abrahamic texts which have had far more influence (I like Nietzsche's 'sklavenmoral' take on that whole thing...). Democracy is where we are at the moment though, and it's obvious imperfections [one man, one vote - even if the man is good or bad, wise or stupid] for me are outweighed by the poorer alternatives of tyranny or oligarchy. Plato subscribed to the model of Aristocracy being the better form of rule - not as we now think of Aristocracy but a caste society of philosopher-kings, guardians and people; unappealing on the surface but there are several caveats; the philosopher-kings had authority but could not have property or wealth, would be selfless, wise and reasoned and even their children would be taken from them to prevent nepotism or favour - sacrifices were to be made to hold this position. Similarly the guardians/civil servants/soldiers had to sacrifice what ordinary people enjoyed and also had to be worthy of the position. Ordinary people could exist as normal people with wealth and property etc but had to undertake to sustain the leadership. It's almost meritocratic/technocratic.
In today's context we're not going to change the system too radically ourselves - it may be changed radically by us sleeping and letting the monster of tyranny take charge - to paraphrase Goya -as happens time and again elsewhere [and despite our past, could equally be in our future...], but there are several obvious flaws that I think can be improved without touching on the principles of democracy and our system today I think.
First of all the flaw of competence. One day MP Smith is in charge of Fisheries and expounds with expertise, the next day there is a reshuffle and MP Smith is in charge of Health - and perhaps that very same day will stand behind a rostrum and deliver a fine treatise on the benefits of doing this that or the other with an experts weight. This is clearly nonsense despite the underpinning of the civil service advisors.
Secondly the flaw of continuity. Each opposing party has 5 years to make a stab at tinkering with the economy or improving crime figures, but there is no incentive to project further than the next election even though such fundamental aspects may take 10 or even 20 years to properly mature. The opposing party has, by it's nature, different ideas to the incumbents - why do they exist if not? - but this means a constant see-sawing of policy and strategy where things remain fundamentally unchanged / unimproved in the long term. If we had long term vision, would we be asking the Japanese to build our nuclear plants today despite our leading the field 50 years ago...? The baton isn't passed.
Third the flaw of antagonistic duality. Increasingly relevant in todays world of instant opinion and hyperpolarisation between the two great constructs of socialism and conservatism, and intrinsically wrapped up with the perceptions they portray to their 'fans' - there is very little critical analysis of information - there is too much and it's too slanted and people are too invested in what they think is 'their' team's ideology. No one party will hold all the good ideas, and nor will the other party be replete with nothing but bad ideas. But rather than think about this, the dopamine hit of finding, hating and spreading the 'nonsense' of the opposite team fogs all reason. [The 'radical-centrist', pointed out by an earlier poster, striving to maintain the status quo is perhaps not necessarily a bad thing...]
Finally the flaw of self interest. Politicians are generally psychopathic in nature; [if you don't believe me take a look at the Hare Psychopathy Scale...] and predominant quality is egotism, they yearn for power and success as a primary motivator, will say and do anything to advance their career, even over and above the good of the citizenry. They tinker to get their name in the paper, they happily weaken party resolve to advance themselves in it or to position themselves for the next advancement. They happily lie to the nation without shame, and unfortunately, even if we know better, we accept this poor governance with a shrug as the alternative is just as bad.
Solutions? Apart from a Platonic Aristocracy?
Those solutions lie in the reasoning of the populace unfortunately, so don't hold out too much hope, but perhaps a few ideas:-
i. Expertise: Ministerial candidates should be experts in their field by dint of both qualification and experience. At the moment you don't need any or either to even rule the country - contrast that with what it takes to sit on top of a rocket and you'll see the problem.
ii. Continuity: From this expertise may come some better continuity; there is more than one way to skin a cat, granted, but at least we should be able to agree that the cat needs skinned.
iii. Antagonism: A difficult one to crack but ultimately we should better judge that someone who perpetually shouts down and derides the opposition has nothing constructive to say about the future of the country.
ii. Status: Politicians are given far too much credit where it is not due and enjoy a high societal status; I think it should be a far more humble occupation in terms of perceived importance; the Prime Minister of the day is, in some ways, of lesser importance than the Nurse in the A&E department and societally we should examine that; furthermore, all outside interests should be barred and any money coming in to the individual should be solely from the public purse rather than from anywhere outside the citizenry; no relation should be advanced or employed by the politician or party outside merit nor should there be any perceived corrupt practise - i.e. lobbying - these are fairly basic accepted rules in most parts of commercial life, yet almost completely ignored by those that made those rules. Accountability is mixed in with both expertise and status here; if you don't perform you're out and if you leave after a mess you should pay for any negligence.
All wishful thinking perhaps...
tbh the reasoning that arrives at philosopher-kings sounds not entirely unlike a lot of religious dogma, celebate "pure" priests and all that and that didn't work out grand.In today's context we're not going to change the system too radically ourselves - it may be changed radically by us sleeping and letting the monster of tyranny take charge - to paraphrase Goya -as happens time and again elsewhere [and despite our past, could equally be in our future...], but there are several obvious flaws that I think can be improved without touching on the principles of democracy and our system today I think.
First of all the flaw of competence. One day MP Smith is in charge of Fisheries and expounds with expertise, the next day there is a reshuffle and MP Smith is in charge of Health - and perhaps that very same day will stand behind a rostrum and deliver a fine treatise on the benefits of doing this that or the other with an experts weight. This is clearly nonsense despite the underpinning of the civil service advisors.
Secondly the flaw of continuity. Each opposing party has 5 years to make a stab at tinkering with the economy or improving crime figures, but there is no incentive to project further than the next election even though such fundamental aspects may take 10 or even 20 years to properly mature. The opposing party has, by it's nature, different ideas to the incumbents - why do they exist if not? - but this means a constant see-sawing of policy and strategy where things remain fundamentally unchanged / unimproved in the long term. If we had long term vision, would we be asking the Japanese to build our nuclear plants today despite our leading the field 50 years ago...? The baton isn't passed.
Third the flaw of antagonistic duality. Increasingly relevant in todays world of instant opinion and hyperpolarisation between the two great constructs of socialism and conservatism, and intrinsically wrapped up with the perceptions they portray to their 'fans' - there is very little critical analysis of information - there is too much and it's too slanted and people are too invested in what they think is 'their' team's ideology. No one party will hold all the good ideas, and nor will the other party be replete with nothing but bad ideas. But rather than think about this, the dopamine hit of finding, hating and spreading the 'nonsense' of the opposite team fogs all reason. [The 'radical-centrist', pointed out by an earlier poster, striving to maintain the status quo is perhaps not necessarily a bad thing...]
Finally the flaw of self interest. Politicians are generally psychopathic in nature; [if you don't believe me take a look at the Hare Psychopathy Scale...] and predominant quality is egotism, they yearn for power and success as a primary motivator, will say and do anything to advance their career, even over and above the good of the citizenry. They tinker to get their name in the paper, they happily weaken party resolve to advance themselves in it or to position themselves for the next advancement. They happily lie to the nation without shame, and unfortunately, even if we know better, we accept this poor governance with a shrug as the alternative is just as bad.
Solutions? Apart from a Platonic Aristocracy?
Those solutions lie in the reasoning of the populace unfortunately, so don't hold out too much hope, but perhaps a few ideas:-i. Expertise: Ministerial candidates should be experts in their field by dint of both qualification and experience. At the moment you don't need any or either to even rule the country - contrast that with what it takes to sit on top of a rocket and you'll see the problem.
ii. Continuity: From this expertise may come some better continuity; there is more than one way to skin a cat, granted, but at least we should be able to agree that the cat needs skinned.
iii. Antagonism: A difficult one to crack but ultimately we should better judge that someone who perpetually shouts down and derides the opposition has nothing constructive to say about the future of the country.
ii. Status: Politicians are given far too much credit where it is not due and enjoy a high societal status; I think it should be a far more humble occupation in terms of perceived importance; the Prime Minister of the day is, in some ways, of lesser importance than the Nurse in the A&E department and societally we should examine that; furthermore, all outside interests should be barred and any money coming in to the individual should be solely from the public purse rather than from anywhere outside the citizenry; no relation should be advanced or employed by the politician or party outside merit nor should there be any perceived corrupt practise - i.e. lobbying - these are fairly basic accepted rules in most parts of commercial life, yet almost completely ignored by those that made those rules. Accountability is mixed in with both expertise and status here; if you don't perform you're out and if you leave after a mess you should pay for any negligence.
All wishful thinking perhaps...
Edited by andy_s on Monday 11th June 16:47
El stovey said:
Part of the problem with changing democracy is that people actually like to identify with political parties and political ideologies.
Following a party is like following a football team or a religion etc, it gives people a tribal sense of belonging and feeling part of something, like when we were part of a tribe in Africa hunting together and cooperating in order to survive.
The problem now is that people ideologically attached to parties are feeling let down as their party adopts positions they disagree with over brexit or trump or whatever and how they view the parties traditional ideology.
Threads on here are full of disgruntled people saying “I’ve always voted x but now I’m not going to vote for them over brexit (or whatever) but I can’t ever vote Y”
It seems crazy really. Why not just look at each party as the election approaches and decide then? Parties are always floating around and adopting different positions if you’re slavishly attached to one, you’re bound to get let down at some point.
Not sure I completely agree. There is an element of tribalism but it is more the fact that no party is espousing my views right now. No party is offering competent leadership. No party has a cogent solution to the economy or Brexit. Every party is hopelessly split on the major issue of Brexit, other than the LibDems. At the moment, I feel I have to choose the least worst option for the country.Following a party is like following a football team or a religion etc, it gives people a tribal sense of belonging and feeling part of something, like when we were part of a tribe in Africa hunting together and cooperating in order to survive.
The problem now is that people ideologically attached to parties are feeling let down as their party adopts positions they disagree with over brexit or trump or whatever and how they view the parties traditional ideology.
Threads on here are full of disgruntled people saying “I’ve always voted x but now I’m not going to vote for them over brexit (or whatever) but I can’t ever vote Y”
It seems crazy really. Why not just look at each party as the election approaches and decide then? Parties are always floating around and adopting different positions if you’re slavishly attached to one, you’re bound to get let down at some point.
Party politics made sense in a world where communication was difficult and voters had to rally behind a rosette. Now, we can offer instant communication and we could electronically poll millions of people to understand their preferences in a few days. Hard, soft, no Brexit? Easy to find out what people really want now the negotiating position of the EU is clearer. However our form of parliamentary democracy cannot function without the party political system - the hurdle for independents is simply too high.
Sortition from the leaders in their fields (head teachers, consultant doctors, generals, farmers, bankers, industrialists, trades union leaders, actors, artists, IT bods, lawyers, charity leaders, policemen, leading human rights activists, disabled campaigners, etc.) might be one solution. They could be guided by regular plebiscites on the preferred direction - economic choices, investment options, pension reforms - all costed and explained. What do people (in the main) want?
This would mean there is no need for manifestos and parties. Get the brightest and best to investigate how do we get close to it. If we can't, explain why we can't and ask again. Then execute competently. Not much to ask really.
Instead we are stuck with a bunch of preening incompetent demagogues pursuing power for the sake of power not for the good of the country. They are all focused on getting re-elected, not on trying to explain the difficult choices and are dreadful at execution because all they've spent their life doing is mastering the party political system.
AstonZagato said:
Not sure I completely agree. There is an element of tribalism but it is more the fact that no party is espousing my views right now. No party is offering competent leadership.
Sure AstonZagato but you like me aren’t obviously tied to a party. I feel disenfranchised for the same reasons as you.
Other people though who are tied to parties feel more let down as their team has changed or moved away from what the voter thinks the party’s values should be.
I vote for whichever party I think will do the best job. Whereas on here I often hear people say things like “I’d never vote x” or “I’m a lifelong y voter” indicating that the party they always vote for gives them something more than a political part gives me or you.
I've not read the whole tread but I think just just giving certain national topics a special status which forces parliament as a whole to work together would help enormously.
Only a couple but i'm thinking NHS & schools. And now brexit.
These things need management that is long term and not forced to lurch from one ideology to the other every few years.
The rest of the stuff that takes up government, day. can continue as is until we find something better.
Oh and get the t
ts out of that folly called houses of parliament and into a purpose built facility, suited to the task.
Only a couple but i'm thinking NHS & schools. And now brexit.
These things need management that is long term and not forced to lurch from one ideology to the other every few years.
The rest of the stuff that takes up government, day. can continue as is until we find something better.
Oh and get the t
ts out of that folly called houses of parliament and into a purpose built facility, suited to the task.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff