As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Is there anything better than democracy?
Loren Michael
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Is there anything better than democratically elected governments out there in the world of ideas? By "better" I mean nothing in particular. Merely the individual's appraisal that favors some entirely novel form or radical mutation of an existing system, though for the sake of discussion, an explanation would be nice.
I'm curious for a number of reasons, but I came to mulling over this subject when I was designing an advanced society for a Dungeons and Dragons campaign( :P ), and got to thinking about the vetting process for individuals in China, specifically in regards to the wisdom of their leaders.
For all its (significant) faults, for all the problems of liberty and poverty in China, one thing that they do have going for them is that their leaders are almost frighteningly intelligent. The vetting process that they undergo to rise to the top is apparently extremely effective at weeding out the dumb ones.
I compare this to more popularly elected governments, such as the United States, where politicians frequently face problems of their own deficient mental prowess, the (lack of) mental prowess of their constituents, or both. This is a relatively narrow example of a problem and a nondemocratic (and certainly not problem-free) solution, but I hope it's sufficient to get the ball rolling. One thing I see as a problem in most governments is a deficiency of reason in people. Either at the base, or at the top, or both. Other problems are a lack of liberties, both personal and financial. Maybe the answer is just "better democracy", but I'd like to try and explore that question, and challenge the popular dogma.
Is there a way to get the best of good government while eschewing the worst elements of government?
Oh, and just to get this out of the way:
I'm curious for a number of reasons, but I came to mulling over this subject when I was designing an advanced society for a Dungeons and Dragons campaign( :P ), and got to thinking about the vetting process for individuals in China, specifically in regards to the wisdom of their leaders.
For all its (significant) faults, for all the problems of liberty and poverty in China, one thing that they do have going for them is that their leaders are almost frighteningly intelligent. The vetting process that they undergo to rise to the top is apparently extremely effective at weeding out the dumb ones.
I compare this to more popularly elected governments, such as the United States, where politicians frequently face problems of their own deficient mental prowess, the (lack of) mental prowess of their constituents, or both. This is a relatively narrow example of a problem and a nondemocratic (and certainly not problem-free) solution, but I hope it's sufficient to get the ball rolling. One thing I see as a problem in most governments is a deficiency of reason in people. Either at the base, or at the top, or both. Other problems are a lack of liberties, both personal and financial. Maybe the answer is just "better democracy", but I'd like to try and explore that question, and challenge the popular dogma.
Is there a way to get the best of good government while eschewing the worst elements of government?
Oh, and just to get this out of the way:
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Loren Michael on
0
Posts
I'm not sure there are any large-scale democracies in the world today. Republics, certainly.
I would think, in general, a republic is the better method, simply due to complexity and matters of mood swings, -but-, it needs an insanely well-designed, clear Constitution to hail from, about the size of a library.
Anything better?
EDIT: Elks, I'm wondering if that wisdom might be challenged.
I think that could work better than democracy, but it assumes, basically, nearly unlimited resources (there's no reason to invade somebody else if you have everything you need back home).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
In theory, yes. In practice all the alternative systems seem to go to shit fairly quickly. (Monarchies- get one or two bad rulers and you're fucked; dictatorships have that problem AND nastier succession issues, etc).
Well, even in theory, monarchies and dictatorships have significant problems, such as the ones you just noted, and a great deal more.
You just can't have any -real- people involved, since actual people are assholes.
I think that this is where most government systems fail, really.
When my Classics teacher gave us the thinking exercise of creating a new nation (basically a lead-in to Solon and the Athenian democratic model), my group came up with what was in essence a meritocracy. The only problem with that is who gets to decide what "best" really means.
I'm fond of the notion of ambition countering ambition, and people working against each other within government to counter our worst impulses. I think that a "best government" that doesn't involve real people isn't a "best government" at all. A "best government" has to consider problems coming from within and without.
An unelected system such as the one China has has the advantage of effectively weeding out the idiots and incompetents, leaving a very intelligent and skilled governing class. The problem is lack of accountability to the people. A very intelligent, very skilled, very powerful group of people with very little oversight will become very corrupt very quickly.
Personally, I think the system Canada theoretically has would be the best. It has both. A democratically-elected House of Commons that holds most of the government's power, and an unelected Senate that works as oversight on the Commons, to make sure they don't do something stupid.
In real life though, the Canadian system is kinda rusted now. Decades of complacency brought on by the Canadian people's surprising ability to not elect idiots, the appointments to the Senate being given as reward for party loyalty rather than on competency and skill, and a general popular feeling of "why is this unelected, unqualified group given power over our government?" has left the Senate as little more than an overpaid rubber stamp for the Commons.
You mentioned Dungeons and Dragons.
Anyways, I think the primary issue is the constitution as much as the system itself
You need something iron-clad and as un-lawyer-able as possible to keep the demopublic from going to pot if the society itself ends up with an asshole majority.
And I've always enjoyed the way the senate works in the United States, as it effectively counters the potential tyranny of the majority coming from the House with its own tyranny of the minority coming from the plains states.
Is it possible to have competency and accountability without relying on the populace being reasonable? Alternatively, is it possible to depersonalize politics such that it no longer becomes a popularity contest between people and starts becoming a contest between ideas?
Make the buggers write their bullshit instead of announce it on TV covered in makeup and marketing advice.
Disallowing private gatherings would be a big help, too.
None of this shit where they talk to lobbyists behind closed doors and say the exact opposite to the public.
This seems like a flawed premise to me. If the populace is not reasonable, who’s to say if the leaders are accountable or not?
To the first question, yes. It's simple: take the populace out of the loop, or at least limit their influence. Make someone (not the populace) in charge of setting competency standards and selecting leaders based on them, and in charge of keeping these leaders accountable. Then, you'll have competency and accountability independently of the level of the population. China certainly accomplished the first one. The problem is that they didn't do the second one. It's not that their leaders are not accountable to the people, but that they are not accountable to anyone at all.
To the second question, no, and it's not necessary. First, no. If you take the "people" out of the debate and make it a debate between ideas, you'll just bore the electorate. Voter turnout is low as it is, and this measure will just kill it. But second, it's not necessary. It's possible to argue ideas as they're put forward by people. This very forum is an example: we all know the big debaters, like Shinto, ElJeffe, Elkamil, and so on, and some people even follow them around to check their latest posts in interesting debates. But we still enjoy the debates for the ideas they (and other smaller forumers) put forward, not for mindless "GO SHINTO WE'RE NUMBER 1 WOOOOO" nonesense. The fact they are known and popular individuals does not ruin the debate.
...or something like that, been a while since I read it.
t Echo: So something like a line-by-line veto, but in the populace’s control? The problem I see with that system is that lobbyists would be able to easily storm the system—if not directly, votes could be ‘cast’ by associations for the same effect.
t Richy: Your first point is workable, provided the standards themselves are not corrupted. Regarding your second: cults of personality and the like can be avoided on a small scale like the forums, where there are perhaps one hundred people who actively follow the debates. Once the ‘population’ reaches thousands or millions, the idea of a large percentage of citizens actively participating is simply impossible to maintain.
I like that - thats interesting.
How about this one (though obviously not recommending it). It's basically Jury Duty ++.
You register your expertise and qualifications, and you can be randomly called to take any job in government. Including President.
It would be great for a small, intelligent population. Not that those exist...
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
However, by the same token, it's not unreasonable to think that systems of government can improve with the progress of technology. If nothing else, it helps to reduce voter fraud.
Unless you go with something like the Culture.
The Dispossesed was certainly food for thought. Though, of course, we're too short on anarchist commies to actually try implimenting something similar, and furthermore, they corrupted eventually anyway.
Sometimes I think the world's headed for it, looking at the way electronics and information technology are changing society... But then you have to look at all the ways authority-based (even if "representative") governments utilize the same technology, and you wonder. Even if the world was heading for it (which I doubt), I can't say it's impossible in modern times anyway, looking at examples from history and the multitudes of anarchist philosophy out there.
I haven't read much on the pluralist form Feral mentioned, but it sounds extremely similar... Hell, I'm going to go look that up now.
Everyone in the Demarchy gets fitted with a brain implant at a certain age. Votes are managed by sending them to a randomly selected group of people of a sufficient size. As they get used to it it becomes second nature to vote without really thinking about it, though demarchists are described as looking constantly absent-minded.
Eh, I'll just quote wikipedia.
EDIT:
And you still face the problem that the result depends on the population, or in other words a stupid public will lead to stupid policies. Though I guess that, in a sci-fi scenario, we can just assume that the whole knowledge and information needed to make a smart, informed decision is downloaded in the brain through the chip.
Having the government do more often isn't a good thing.
Devil's Advocate: because what's best for the people often isn't what they want. Obvious example: taxes.
Anyway, I had an excellent idea for an addition to a republic / democracy: anybody running for (or holding) a high-profile elected office forfeits all rights to privacy, and has all their actions recorded every moment of every day. Bill it as "reality television" and run a few television stations dedicated to it. To increase ratings, enforce monthly karaoke competitions. The masses will gobble it up.
Ain't that much of a problem IF they retain the abiltiy to redelegate and override the votes.
The best part of a democracy is not electing the best person for the job (which it does not do because it is just a giant popularity contest), but that it gives an orderly and guaranteed way for voters to remove the persons in charge if they choose to.
All putting cameras on politicians would do is generate 8 hours a day of wholesome footage of them eating nice homecooked meals over a family dinner table and playing football with their beautiful white protestant kids like Ward Cleaver, because they'd be too frightened of scandals to do any of the things that real human beings do. I don't give a fuck what politicians do in their private lives. Fuck an intern. Fuck 20 interns. Fuck a goat for all I care. (By the way, did I mention that Monicagate was the lamest scandal evar? Whoo, the President fucked a BBW - who gives a shit?)
Naw, if we're going to institute drastic measures to ensure governmental accountability, I'd start with the voters. I'd just beat every stupid person who votes without knowing the issues over the skull with a wet gym sock until they start using the limp and flabby organ contained therein.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Anyway, as far as the "what's best for people isn't necessarily what they want" argument, I'd say education is the force that synthesizes what people want and what is best for them. The taxes example is a tad lost on me, though, as (as I mentioned earlier) I'm an anarchist. :P
I have to wonder in the mass scale whether it's really possible to get people excited about democracies. The thing is, my vote in the national elections in Canada will never ever have an effect in determining who becomes prime minister. Whether I vote or sit at home, quite unlikely that I'll ever determine the outcome, because elections are rarely determined by just my vote.
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
Right, now all we need is a massive alien invasion to get the world to agree with this.
I'sm sorry, but I don't think that world governments fall under a reasonable government.