Greta wrote:I've heard postulated that the seeming self-defeating reluctance of some western nations to educate their people stems from the wish of those in power (corporations that control governments) to have convenient and controllable "drones" at their disposal.
I don't really go in for conspiracy theories myself. I think people are just a bit lazy and fear change and the unknown. Things are getting better but it takes generations for it to come together. There has been such rapid social change over the past century already, its no wonder revolutionising the government of the western world seems more than a little terrifying. But maybe its next on the 'To Do' List!
Wilson wrote:Instead, how about requiring people running for office to have gone through a course in public service - management, economics, ethics, etc.?
Thanks for your thoughts Wilson. I could be wrong but many politicians study politics, international relations or the traditional 'PPE', Philosophy, Politics and Economics at university, I think. I don't think they are all bad but it is just the system which is out of balance and skewed to favour the rich and vain. Plus people will tend to be naughty if everyone else is and when there are no consequences. The public need to have a much larger role and to be the decision makers rather than just being thrown the occasional election or referendum to keep us appeased!
Wilson wrote:I think randomly selecting politicians would probably be an improvement, but of course the problem is that not everybody is management material - some are incompetent and some are crooks.
Im thinking more along the lines of a political jury of randomly selected people who would be able to decide which proposals they wanted to say yes or no to. They wouldn't necessarily have to be make the proposals or put them in to practice themselves. We would still need the managers as you rightly pointed out, but as Okisites says they should be those who are genuinely dedicated to working in their given area of expertise, not just moved around from education to foreign affairs to the environment at the drop of a hat.
Greta wrote:Corruption and bias are challenges. How can we rely on regular people to resist the entreaties of their friends, family and associates to attend local problems, to push their own local agendas "up the list"?
Corruption and biases are challenges, your right, but don't you think the chances of a random selection of people being corrupt are less than within a group of career politicians with allegiances and investments, largely from wealthy backgrounds?
Alias wrote:The whole concept of democracy rests on the same premises that are used as objections to the real practice of democracy. 1. That adult citizens are capable of decisions regarding their own lives and social structures., 2. That a constitution and laws can be upheld by a reasonable polity, reasonably administered. and 3. That no special talent o training are required to conduct the legislative processes
I suppose it is partly about whether we can trust people. Like you, I think we can (apart from a small minority). People with criminal records would be excluded from participation anyway. I think people respond to expectation, so if we raise expectations, people will respond accordingly.
This link:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1002/10011701 is a large study of the effectiveness of the jury system in England and Wales and it is comforting to know that many of the myths people believe are unfounded.
A recent World Happiness Report by the UN and co-edited by the Director of the Earth Institute, Professor Jeffery Sachs, at Columbia University found that,
".. it is not just wealth that makes people happy: Political freedom, strong social networks and an absence of corruption are together more important than income in explaining well-being differences between the top and bottom countries. At the individual level, good mental and physical health, someone to count on, job security and stable families are crucial."
I think it is the disparity between the richest and poorest of the country that creates a great deal of unhappiness and this gap appears to be widening in the western world.
Alias wrote:Suppose we run the pilot program on towns no larger than 10,000 inhabitants and if it works, keep enlarging it till we get to the UN.
I couldn't agree more. The thought of huge change can seem like it might end up all going wrong but if it was gradual and tested at each stage then there would be no good reason not to roll it out nationally and beyond.
Alias wrote:any popular system of government can function adequately only as long as its three pillars are stable: a non-political judiciary, a free and independent press and a competent, reasonably honest civil service.
Not in our life time perhaps, but hopefully, its not too far away!
Alias wrote:Legislatures make policy decisions - they don't have to run the country, just steer it.
I agree. Any reasonable person can be entrusted to important decisions, based on their values.
Okisites wrote:Why exactly you said doctorate in their given field? What qualities they supposed to have to serve the country better? I see that you didn't paid attention to the social workers I have suggested who have dedicated their life for any particular cause? Do you think that these people are inelligible for top government/management works?
Maybe I wasn't clear. I was agreeing with you when I said those with 'extensive work experience
and/ or a doctorate' in their given field are both invaluable.
Those who are doing in depth studies to create reliable data are very important as well as those who have spent their lives actually working 'in the trenches' in education, social work, healthcare, the police, for the environment and so on. The experienced worker may be swayed by institutionalisation and confirmation bias, however, so their experience must be backed up by genuine, impartial, scientific studies.