Immanuel Can wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:10 pm
philosopher wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:57 pm
Don't know how to explain further, but you did it quite well. Thanks!
It's only fair. I didn't think you meant what he was attributing to you. You're quite welcome.
Besides, there is an alternative to democracy that is not dictatorship: Rule by experts!
Plato thought that, too. He argued for "philosopher kings" to rule.
But there's a number of problems with that idea, and with the idea of "expert" rule. What's an "expert"? Who gets to say who is an "expert," and who is not? Are we talking merely an "expert in political systems," or an "expert in academic knowledge," or an "expert social engineer," or an "expert in controlling the masses," or an "expert in" something else? Does such an "expert" have to be a "good" person, morally? And how do we determine what a "good" person is? Who gets to say that?
You see the many problems. And they can hardly be rushed past, since failure to treat one of them seriously could have very dire consequences. For example, by rushing past the question of whether "expert" knowledge is political or moral, we could end up with rule by an expert manipulator with no moral conscience at all...very bad, we'd all agree. Equally, by preferring a "moral" leader to a "practical" one, we could end up with somebody who means well but lacks the applied knowledge to do us any good.
In practical terms, rule by experts turns out to mean, "rule by whomever somebody
proclaims an expert." But who is that "somebody"? And how do we know he or she has the right take on what an "expert" is?
It's against such abuses that democracy was first contrived. The idea was that nobody's really a trustworthy "expert," with all the necessary virtues to rule embodied in himself. So the best we can do, provisionally, was decided to be a system that checks against and balances off his putative "expertise" with the broadest possible reading of the freedoms of all individuals, regardless of their "expertise," plus a strict limitation on the authority of any one person.
Not a bad idea, if you ask me; certainly better than the obvious
Well, I believe a good alternative to democracy is the rule of the experts, elected by representatives of the people, who are then elected by the people. It may seem like democracy, but it is neccessary with this extra "buffer" to prevent - as much as possible - demagogues from getting power.
I would propose the following system:
In many modern western societies, especially in Western Europe, we have Trade Unions, some for labourers and some for the employers and industry.
I suggest a system where the Trade Unions decide the experts by election. The Trade Union Representatives should be elected by the people, except if one is member of the Employers Organizations or Industrial Organizations, they have the right to vote in those unions, while those who vote in the Labor Unions do not have a vote in the Industry Unions.
Trade Unions should be established by law, and should represent:
A: Workers, Pensioners & Unemployed.
B: Employers & Industry.
Each group's number of representatives should be corresponding to the number of people represented by each group.
So, if there are more employers than workers, the employers get more representatives than the workers and vice versa.
When the representatives have been elected in each union, we have a parliament, say 179 members of Trade Union Parliament. Then they HAVE to pick experts for each ministry/department - by election of course. Experts willing to join, should be candidates and these candidates are elected by majority of vote by members of parliament.
For instance, you have to be a doctor and have worked X years as a doctor, before you can work in the Ministry of Health. And you have to be an economist to work in the Ministry of Finance.
They are picked by majority of vote by the representatives in the parliament - not by any Head of State or Prime Minister. Though, we should have a Prime Minister but his role would be to address the nation of the decisions made by the parliament.
This way we still have elections but without demagogues and without populist parties. Actually, no parties should be allowed. Political Parties should be banned, we should only have Interest Organizations, corresponding to the interests of the various areas of society. It will work somewhat similar to political parties, except for the crucial part that their interests are clear and visible for everyone to see and they are not in parliament, but outside the parliament within the Trade Unions.
In todays politics, political parties have various names and interests. Conservatives would claim to speak pro-social welfare, only in order to get more votes, while social democrats would speak in favor of indutry, to gain their acceptance as well.
By eliminating political parties and establish Interest Organizations, it becomes very clear indeed who's with who.
These interest organizations should be formed in the Trade Unions before the elections.
Members of Parliament are elected representatives of the Trade Unions, and they are not obliged to follow any party politics or even the interests of the trade unions. They are individuals and the vote by their own conscience.
To ensure the MP's are not making any laws that give them even more power, say become dictators and abolish elections, there should be a constitution which ensures certain liberties and press freedom, the right to assembly and the right to vote in Trade Unions every 4th year, no matter wether or not one is recieving benefits, imprisoned, retarded or whatever. If you are a citizen, 18 years old and live in the nation, one has the right to vote.
The constitution should only be changed by the vote of the majority of people, after at least 2/3 of parliament wants such a referendum.
This entire system ensures that the interests
of the people - not the politics of the people - only the interests - are maintained while still maintaining elections and some kind of democracy.