24 Nov 11
From a [political satire] BBC podcast I was listening to this morning:
"There's been a lot of fuss that 'the people' have not been given a say over the [Eurozone] bailouts but then the media have a very schizophrenic attitude to 'the people'. You must have noticed that newspapers regularly run stories that go 'Seventy percent of adults cannot read a bus timetable!' or... 'Half the population cannot multiply 50 by 17!' They are forever running surveys that show people can't add up or don't know the name of the foreign secretary or the year World War Two broke out. Then suddenly, the very next day, the same papers go It's timevotershad asayon thedebt restructuringof theEurozone! or Why, oh whycan't theylet thepeopledecide aboutthefeasibility ofoperating asinglecurrency inaneconomic areaofwidely differinglevelsofproductivity??'
Any thoughts on the triangle of political deliberation formed between representative democracy, the use of or demand for referenda, and the role of tabloid newspapers that are read by many millions of people?
24 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFPure democracy as in every person voting on every issue has problems. Major problems. For a start, as you correctly point out, not everyone is capable of making rational decisions on every matter - due to lack of education, lack of interest or otherwise.
Any thoughts on the triangle of political deliberation formed between representative democracy, the use of or demand for referenda, and the role of tabloid newspapers that are read by many millions of people?
Equally bad, is when the majority make decisions that negatively affect a minority.
Most countries therefore have tried to devise a system whereby:
1. Some issues are decided via constitution especially protections for minorities.
2. The people decide only the way they want to be governed and who should do it. (elections, political parties)
3. Day to day issues are decided by those elected to do so.
4. There are some mechanisms that allow concerned citizens to have some input to day to day decisions.
The down side is that:
1. Most people tend to have very little actual choice or input.
2. Most input comes from those willing to put an effort into it, which tends to be those with money (corporations, foreign powers, political parties, etc).
3. Many decisions are biased not by what is best for the country, but what the politician thinks will win him the next election. One of the worst side effects of this is long term planning goes out the window.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Nov 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe problem in this specific instance is that by handing powers over to Europe without a referendum, this...
Pure democracy as in every person voting on every issue has problems. Major problems. For a start, as you correctly point out, not everyone is capable of making rational decisions on every matter - due to lack of education, lack of interest or otherwise.
Equally bad, is when the majority make decisions that negatively affect a minority.
Most countries ...[text shortened]... next election. One of the worst side effects of this is long term planning goes out the window.
"2. The people decide only the way they want to be governed and who should do it. (elections, political parties)"
Has been bypassed, the elected have made changes to the way the people are governed and by whom and not the other way around.
The level of 'short termism' can be altered by changing the frequency of elections and the duration of election campaigns.
In America where they have an election every 2 years they spend almost no time governing and almost all their time campaigning.
It's not so bad in places where elections are held at 4~5 year intervals and election campaigns last a few months rather than over
a year.
24 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeNevertheless, with long term issues like global warming, it seems that most governments around the world can get away with lots of talk and no action because they believe that any serious effects (or benefits from acting) will not happen within their terms, so actually doing anything will not improve their chances of re-election.
The level of 'short termism' can be altered by changing the frequency of elections and the duration of election campaigns.
In America where they have an election every 2 years they spend almost no time governing and almost all their time campaigning.
It's not so bad in places where elections are held at 4~5 year intervals and election campaigns last a few months rather than over
a year.
Long term dictatorship, like China, has some advantages.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Nov 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadIndeed, Ironic isn't it.
Nevertheless, with long term issues like global warming, it seems that most governments around the world can get away with lots of talk and no action because they believe that any serious effects (or benefits from acting) will not happen within their terms, so actually doing anything will not improve their chances of re-election.
Long term dictatorship, like China, has some advantages.
I sometimes wonder whether some aspects of our 'governance' shouldn't be run by technocrats.
I mean it's technically down to our elected officials to ensure we have enough electricity and that our infrastructure is
well maintained. But is that really a political issue?
Do we really need to decide every election whether our infrastructure needs maintaining?
Surely it would be better to have our infrastructure overseen and maintained by people who actually know something
about it and have degrees in engineering and physics and have experience working in the field, rather than a bunch
of people with PPE degrees from Oxford who just won a popularity contest.
Elections should be about what kind of society we want to be and what our values are, not whether or not the electricity
will stay on this winter, or whether or not we pollute the planet to the point of biosphere destruction.
24 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat depends on whether you trust a corporation to run something that is of national importance ( 'too big to fail' )
I mean it's technically down to our elected officials to ensure we have enough electricity and that our infrastructure is
well maintained. But is that really a political issue?
Many parts of the country and its economy can be privatized, but it still needs oversight as it is really difficult to get the right balance of incentives that will make those charged with the responsibility do what is best for the country not just what is best for them.
It appears we need better world wide management systems too because so many countries are doing what is best for them but not best for the world as a whole.
In fact, the global warming issue is one in which there are a few main polluters who, because they want to stay ahead economically, don't want to do anything about it - at the expense of everybody.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Nov 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't say privatised.
That depends on whether you trust a corporation to run something that is of national importance ( 'too big to fail' )
Many parts of the country and its economy can be privatized, but it still needs oversight as it is really difficult to get the right balance of incentives that will make those charged with the responsibility do what is best for the countr ...[text shortened]... to stay ahead economically, don't want to do anything about it - at the expense of everybody.
And I don't trust corporations to maintain infrastructure.
I meant a different section of government that wasn't elected (or at least not in
the same way or at the same frequency) whose job it was to run and maintain
the infrastructure and which was made up of technocrats, ie people with expertise
in the relevant feilds.
Because putting it in the hands of people with no expertise and who need to win
a popularity contest every few years to keep their job is evidently ineffective.
24 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeMost of the people working at ministries are experts and they have a lot of experience. True, they at times have inept bosses who are elected, but these elected officials are also advised by experts on these sort of matters.
I didn't say privatised.
And I don't trust corporations to maintain infrastructure.
I meant a different section of government that wasn't elected (or at least not in
the same way or at the same frequency) whose job it was to run and maintain
the infrastructure and which was made up of technocrats, ie people with expertise
in the relevant feild ...[text shortened]... eed to win
a popularity contest every few years to keep their job is evidently ineffective.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell while I might dispute that 'most' of the people in ministries are experts, they certainly
Most of the people working at ministries are experts and they have a lot of experience. True, they at times have inept bosses who are elected, but these elected officials are also advised by experts on these sort of matters.
do have experts as advisor's.
However, as this current system evidently is affected by the 'bosses' short term view, political
considerations and lack of expertise I stick with "the current system doesn't work"...
or at least not well enough.
One of the biggest problems is that nobody rigorously checks to see if the enacted policy actually
works, and how effective it is. Because elected officials don't want to know that their pet project
while sounding good on paper, doesn't actually work in the real world.
Given that, I don't believe that having working infrastructure (among other things) is actually a
political issue, (everyone agrees we need working infrastructure, the only question is how best
to implement it, which is technical not political) those issues should be administered and operated
by an apolitical body.