Flaw in Democracy
There is a fundamental flaw in Democracy which is that certain people such as architects, scientists, engineers etc do not want to enter politics because if they are not re-elected they cannot go back to where they where. So the people who are in politics are teachers, journalists, lawyers and trade unionists. Such people have no life experience in design and constructive thinking. There is a greater emphasis on argument.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on -
Why can't architects, scientists, engineers etc. go back to their old jobs if they don't get re-elected as politicians? Why is it different for the teachers, journalists, lawyers and trade unionists? Sorry, this is not clear for me.
-
Permalink Reply by William Jack Jordan on -
I know someone who studied law with the aim of entering politics, and they wouldn't be the first.
Journalists may be exposed to a lot of politicians and politics, so a jump into politics might be natural.
I can't think of any teachers, off the top of my head, except for a teacher who wandered into a political meeting in Tasmania in the early 70s, curious to see what was happening. He became a candidate for the federal election.
-
Permalink Reply by Phil Bachmann on -
William - sure you know some: Steve Bracks and John Faulker were both high school teachers.
Science, engineering and possibly architecture are fast moving fields. Five years out and many regard you as a has-been.
I agree also with the suggestion that the "talking" professions lead more naturally into politics.
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on
-
So the flaw in democracy is that it attracts talkers, not doers. Well, the solution then is crystal clear. Abolish parliamentary sittings. Get rid of the bear-pit. It's only reason for being there is that it always was. Since the time of the GG3 right through Rome, the Middle Ages etc. to the present.
It occurs to me that maybe the real reason the Greeks invented that talking circus that is parliamentary process was because they didn't have email or the Internet. Why do we have to continue with this outmoded talking head technology?
The other probable reason the Greeks invented this system of one side shouting down the other is because they also invented argument itself (or refined it to a high degree) which is all about debate and winner take all, so there is a high element of sport at work in the concept.
Parliament is to argument and debate as the Church is to dogma and canon law. Well, the two grew up together...
-
Permalink Reply by William Jack Jordan on
-
I think the Greeks would have had a lot of fun, shouting each other down and arguing.
In addition, we need to get rid of the Legislative Assembly (the upper house). In Victoria, for example, thee are hundreds of politicians on the public purse doing next to zilch.
-
Permalink Reply by William Jack Jordan on
-
My father was an engineer, my uncle was an engineer, they had many friends who were "engies", another uncle was a scientist. I can vouch that politics was not interesting to them. They were interested in things, politicians are more people persons.
Oddly enough, I have an uncle (now retired) who was a public servant and was in charge of the state Public Works. He said that the premier of the day (Henry Bolte) entrusted him and his colleagues with the decision making, as the premier was out of his depth with such matters.
One possible solution is to have more public servants (so their career is not dependant on being elected) who are engineers/architects who work in these areas while acting as advisors to polticians.
-
Permalink Reply by Sinclair McLay on -
Why not have politicians sit a test or assessment before being allowed into politics. This could of course have a creative component. Lets face it - lawyers have to go to Law School....
-
Permalink Reply by William Jack Jordan on
-
Leads to an idea of a person who is trained as a 'social engineer' (or architect or scientist)
who as well as understands how to build a bridge, in trained in deciding whether a bridge should be a built etc.
I've always been puzzled that you do require training to become a politician. I know there are courses like political science, but thats a little different. I find it a little odd that we entrust people with some of the most important decisions, who may have been selected on the basis on how well they come across on TV, whereas their decision making skills might be somewhat random.
Perhaps preselected candidates could be required to do a short course (say up to 1 year?). Maybe they could be funded by government or the political parties themselves.
The course could include practice in all the thinking tools, especially design and constructive thinking, in a context where they could be usefully used by a politician in power.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymund Kwok on -
Democracy system tries to represent different views. It reduces mistake. But it does not help fast and effective implementation.
While I were giving 6 hats training to my son, he expressed it is faster to make a decision before going through the explicit thinking in the 6 aspects. So far, I told him that this helps to reduce immature decisions. I am also telling him more practice will reduce the time.
Is it possible to get both? Are "argument" and "effective implementation" mutually exclusive? I believe with further advancement in communication technology, the time needed for argument and information sharing will be greatly reduced. At that point, the whole society can make argument in a short period of time and then starts implementation immediately.
-
Permalink Reply by William Jack Jordan on
-
Authoritarian systems tend to make decisions more quickly than democracies, though at great cost.
-
Permalink Reply by Danny Stevens on -
I have been a candidate in elections twice here in Australia. I did not want to win. I do not want to be in a system based on argument. I was in seats that could not be won. My purpose was to attract enough primary votes to get my party campaign funding from the electoral commission.
I am a leader in a lobby group, the Australian Secular Lobby. There is an Australian Secular Party but I don't find single issue parties particularly exciting.
I put more effort into community groups were things can be designed and enacted despite the government.
-
Permalink Reply by Leon van den Berg on -
To prevent this flaw in democracy repeating itself in the the vacuum left by young protesters in bringing down the dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt, and possibly in Algeria, Libia, Bahrain etc in future, the ideal guide exists in the form of Dr Edward de Bono’s Handbook For The Positive Revolution.
Let’s talk NOW about how we can spread the message of the Positive Revolution using the new Social Media like Facebook and Twitter, which helped to overthrow the said regimes.
© 2013 Created by Administrator.
Powered by
