Out with Democracy! In with Meritocracy!

[Argus]

So I've grown weary of the type of bland, dull, dishonest, short sighted people democracy seems to push out for us to choose from, and decided on a new form of government for Canada: A Meritocracy.

We screen all schoolchildren for high intelligence, and then select the best to nurture. These are directed into special, post-secondary courses in law and government. Upon graduation, they get to work as town or township councilors. They are watched carefully, and their performance evaluated by experts. The best of them are promoted - the larger municipalities. The best of them, in turn, get promoted to be MPPs, and so on.

Who does the selecting? Public servants screen them under the watchful eye of appointed boards made up of representatives of various groups. A board might have a person selected by the Canadian bar association, another by the Canadian medical association, one representing the police, another clergy, and still another from the local labour board, etc. There'd be a couple representing local land owners, and a couple representing business groups.

To avoid extremism and encourage compromise, the votes of the board for promotion or demotion have to be about 70% one way or the other.

There will be no political parties.

[Michael Hardner]

Isn't that this ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)

 

Seems to me I read that.  Also it's autocratic but you are just being provocative....

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Isn't that this ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)

 

Seems to me I read that.  Also it's autocratic but you are just being provocative....

Hmmm. Does this sound familiar?

As this socioeconomic divide grows, so do tensions between social classes. From the conflicts arising out of such tensions, the poor majority overthrow the wealthy minority, and democracy replaces the oligarchy preceding it. The poor overthrow the oligarchs and grant liberties and freedoms to citizens, creating a most variegated collection of peoples under a "supermarket" of constitutions. A visually appealing demagogue is soon lifted up to protect the interests of the lower class. However, with too much freedom, no requirements for anyone to rule, and having no interest in assessing the background of their rulers (other than honoring such people because they wish the majority well) the people become easily persuaded by such a demagogue's appeal to try and satisfy people's common, base, and unnecessary pleasures.

I am not being entirely provocative. I think such a system could function quite well, with the proper checks and balances. I am a believer in the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so everyone has to have someone who can fire them.

It is in my nature to always search for improvements to things, even things working. Democracy right now is not working very well, here or elsewhere. There's not one democratic government I can think of which is stable and well-run.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Democracy was designed upon a class system whereby a broad 'public' crossed the classes and provided thoughtful and productive synergy on the best way to govern.  It didn't anticipate mass media, or the collapse of enlightened publics.

Right now, China provides a competitive alternative but I would say democracy, and liberal democracy is a victim of its success.  The Yellow Vest facebook group talks about revolution but you can bet all of those idiots owns a truck or two and goes to Florida in the winter.  They have no idea. 

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Democracy was designed upon a class system whereby a broad 'public' crossed the classes and provided thoughtful and productive synergy on the best way to govern.  It didn't anticipate mass media, or the collapse of enlightened publics.

Right now, China provides a competitive alternative but I would say democracy, and liberal democracy is a victim of its success.  The Yellow Vest facebook group talks about revolution but you can bet all of those idiots owns a truck or two and goes to Florida in the winter.  They have no idea. 

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required,"

We've forgotten that maxim. Canadians have grown fat, lazy and self-indulgent. They have never known fear and give little or no thought to the future. They're not alone in this. All across the western world we elected nonentities into high office, of which perhaps Trump is the nadir. Democracy just does not seem to be working. I've suggested ways to change this, by making people work at least a little for the vote they cast, or greatly narrowing the list of voters. But none guarantees we are governed by the best. Merit based choices by appointed, unbiased boards broadly representative of the different groups within society (which could perhaps be elected themselves) would do this.

I don't mean, btw, a mass election for a board. I mean the lawyers could vote on the legal representatives. The labour leaders and activists could vote on the labour representatives, and so on and so on. That way the boards know if they screw up their own people will yank them.

[BubberMiley]

I've never met an unbiased human being. I don't think such a thing exists.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

I've never met an unbiased human being. I don't think such a thing exists.

I said the board would be unbiased. Not the people on it. Obviously the labour rep would be biased in favour of labour, and the business rep in favour of business, etc. The point would be that the board as a whole would be roughly representative of Canadians and if made up of people capable of compromise, could agree on who to promote or demote.

[Michael Hardner]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

1. We've forgotten that maxim. Canadians have grown fat, lazy and self-indulgent. They have never known fear and give little or no thought to the future. They're not alone in this. All across the western world we elected nonentities into high office, of which perhaps Trump is the nadir.

2. Democracy just does not seem to be working.

3. I've suggested ways to change this, by making people work at least a little for the vote they cast, or greatly narrowing the list of voters. But none guarantees we are governed by the best.

4. Merit based choices by appointed, unbiased boards broadly representative of the different groups within society (which could perhaps be elected themselves) would do this.

5. I don't mean, btw, a mass election for a board. I mean the lawyers could vote on the legal representatives. The labour leaders and activists could vote on the labour representatives, and so on and so on. That way the boards know if they screw up their own people will yank them.

1. I'm sympathetic but I can't put morality into this.  We have designed a cultural system to flatter ourselves and reinforce entitlements and identity.

2. Democracy has reached it's limits.  The designers of western democracy couldn't have predicted the results of mass culture which is what we are dealing with.  The idea of a 'public' is gone and democracy doesn't work without one.

3. I would say use the weaknesses of democracy to reinforce it.  Make democracy BORING again.  Make it work to understand it, and make it about reading and writing and thinking instead of just having an opinion.  You don't have to ban people or force a test, just make it less about fighting and competition.

4. This sounds really leftist, sorry to say.  Appointed and connected politicians is what we have today with the LibraConservatives.

5. See above.  That said, Germany designs their system for success by including a labour component as I understand.

 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm sympathetic but I can't put morality into this.  We have designed a cultural system to flatter ourselves and reinforce entitlements and identity.

2. Democracy has reached it's limits.  The designers of western democracy couldn't have predicted the results of mass culture which is what we are dealing with.  The idea of a 'public' is gone and democracy doesn't work without one.

Democracy wasn't so much designed as evolved. And it was certainly predicted. Just read up top where I reposted the quote from the plato's republic cite you provided.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I would say use the weaknesses of democracy to reinforce it. Make democracy BORING again. 

The problem is it is boring now. Most people I know have little interest in politics. Younger people generally have NO interest. They feel that their lives are largely divorced from politics, and it is their own narrow lives they largely care about. Fewer people read newspapers or news magazines. More people get their news in brief radio clips or on Facebook. They don't really know what's going on and couldn't be bothered to find out. Ignorance is growing. And what do the news broadcasts give us? At best, 30 second sound bytes of a reporter giving his version of what a politician just said over the last hour long speech, or two minutes on the budget, focusing on what goodies everyone gets.

What do we actually know about any of these people we've elected? Mostly little or nothing. We don't know if they're particularly intelligent or not. We don't know if they're particularly honest or have integrity or are just venal and self-serving poseurs. Society is too large, and our news sources are too incompetent. Presuming we even consult them. Democracy doesn't work if we don't have a voting base which knows a reasonable amount about those running for office, what they stand for, what those policy proposals would ultimately mean, and the broader background of what is going on around us.

Ignorance is the enemy of democracy, and we are becoming and ignorant people.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Make it work to understand it, and make it about reading and writing and thinking instead of just having an opinion.  You don't have to ban people or force a test, just make it less about fighting and competition.

This 'can't we all just work together' stuff is pie in the sky. There will always be parties or cliques opposing one another. I agree we'd be better off if there weren't, and if people had to vote for their individual MP without regard to political party. But I'm pretty sure once in office groups would form based on political, ideological and social views.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. This sounds really leftist, sorry to say.  Appointed and connected politicians is what we have today with the LibraConservatives.

I'm not talking about people appointed due to connections, but due to proven ability through a series of appointments assessed by a largely unbiased group.

 

[Michael Hardner]

21 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Democracy wasn't so much designed as evolved. And it was certainly predicted. Just read up top where I reposted the quote from the plato's republic cite you provided.

2. The problem is it is boring now. Most people I know have little interest in politics. Younger people generally have NO interest. They feel that their lives are largely divorced from politics, and it is their own narrow lives they largely care about. Fewer people read newspapers or news magazines. More people get their news in brief radio clips or on Facebook. They don't really know what's going on and couldn't be bothered to find out. Ignorance is growing. And what do the news broadcasts give us? At best, 30 second sound bytes of a reporter giving his version of what a politician just said over the last hour long speech, or two minutes on the budget, focusing on what goodies everyone gets.

3. What do we actually know about any of these people we've elected? Mostly little or nothing. We don't know if they're particularly intelligent or not. We don't know if they're particularly honest or have integrity or are just venal and self-serving poseurs.

4. Society is too large, and our news sources are too incompetent. Presuming we even consult them. Democracy doesn't work if we don't have a voting base which knows a reasonable amount about those running for office, what they stand for, what those policy proposals would ultimately mean, and the broader background of what is going on around us.

5. Ignorance is the enemy of democracy, and we are becoming and ignorant people.

6. This 'can't we all just work together' stuff is pie in the sky. There will always be parties or cliques opposing one another. I agree we'd be better off if there weren't, and if people had to vote for their individual MP without regard to political party. But I'm pretty sure once in office groups would form based on political, ideological and social views.

7. I'm not talking about people appointed due to connections, but due to proven ability through a series of appointments assessed by a largely unbiased group.

 

1. Sure, but like evolution you will have an event that causes a great leap.  Like the American revolution.

2.Now ?  It's more exciting now than in the past, as evidenced by the 24-hour news cycle bloodsport.  The soundbyte, YouTube clip and outrage meme IS politics.

3. Very true.  This helped Trump too as people felt they 'knew' him from his show The Apprentice.  

4. It's too complex, that's the thing.  We could reduce the noise by just flat-taxing and flat-benefitting everyone.

5. I would say illiterate more than ignorant, and that doesn't mean not able to read but not connected to the literature and writing based publics for which democracy was designed.

6. Yes and that creates synergy.  Good solutions come from intelligent and well-opposed points of view.  Dumb arguments mean both left- and right- propose solutions are worse.

7. Well... the system as you describe it has the worse of our system.  Appointments would soon become favourable to an inner clique.  Our system is designed to become unbiased and it ends up being biased to the connected LibraCons.  Good on you for thinking about this, though.

I would submit something more open, but I have nothing to say on that.  I do think that benefis should be administered and run by private agencies administered through a board, like Canada Post.  Take more power away from government for things that we don't have politics about anymore.