Any feasible alternatives to democracy?

Post Reply New Topic

Its a big topic so there's lots to think about. Mostly I'd work on Democracy, we don't really have an outright better system yet.

A five year job in the "real world" before running for office combined with no less than five years real world experience in the last fifteen years would definitely help reduce the ivory tower mentality a bit.

Another possibility (UK centric) is to fiddle with the structure of the houses a bit, the House of Lords used to be a pretty good "voice of experience" but now they've removed the hereditary peers membership is whoever the parties want. We could do much better than that. I'd use direct proportional representation and fifteen year terms for the members with *no possibility of getting a second term*. Members are also bared from holding ministerial positions.
The idea is that with long terms, no chance of re-election, no link to a specific constituency and no chance to rise the party ranks there is essentially nothing to distract these guys from debating the matter at hand. Their purpose is to serve as the "voice of experience", the limit on their power would be that the real power resides in the house of commons and the present ability of the Commons to force through legislation would remain. Being pure Proportional Voting it also provides a place for the minor parties to get representation but since its only the House of Lords they lack kingmaker power.
The biggest risk to this system that I can think of is the house becoming a dumping ground for C-leisters. It would either attract people who do it as a public service or turn into a dumping ground for poor candidates. Note that 15 year terms isn't one election every 15 years, rather you have one election every 5 years covering one third of the seats.

The basic principle is that:
Having politicians beholden to voters, elections and their party distracts them from thinking about the issues properly.
Not having politicians beholden to voters and elections means it’s not a democracy.

The logical solution is to have the real power held in a democratically elected body that must answer to its voters constantly with a second oversight body that is not tied down in such a manner.

I assume you folks know that democracy is doomed. In any democracy, sooner or later, the politicians will promise the keys to the national treasury to the group that votes them into office.

ruveyn

We are a flawed species, and it seems anyone weather it be an elected offical, a "benevolent" dictator or the intellectual overlords. You put someone into a position of power and they will be curpted by that power. I know I would and it would be pretty sweet So a system of governence to be good needs to take this tendency into account. As of yet no system I know of seems to do this.

As another thing of note :

This needs to be taken into account, if you live in a "small" town of 10 to 20 thousand people that is more people then a human mind can grasp as human. So in any modern system of government where we measure nations in the 100's of millions of people we need to figure out out to break things down so those making these decisions can see those people AS people reather then just numbers. It's harder to condem one person to suffering and poverty then 20,000 because one person is more intimate, 1 person can be seen as a person, 20,000 is a statistic.

So how do we take care of this, and make a more "perfect" society? I think something new and radical needs to be experamented with. Perhaps people can be grouped in to smaller political definitions of no more then say 150 or 200 people (yes there would be ALOT of them) these would be defined by the beliefs and leanings of the people involved. From there number one is selected to speak for them and this one gets put into a group of people so selected of 150 to 200 people. And so forth and so on until the top of those selected is a small enough councle to make decsions for the whole. No corparate sponsers allowed, no pay... and these positions should not be perminate.

Would this work? Probibly not. Is it new? I'm sure if we looked hard enough we'd find similar examples. But we know the government systems we have are not working. Well, not for the people anyhow.

Technocracy

NO the OP is asking for an alternative to democracy. Socialism is democracy personified.

GGP you asked about a middle way to quote Lenin "the only choice is bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course ..... in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non class or above class ideology"

As titus has already said there is nothing wrong with our present capitalistic democracy as long as you are a member of the ruling elite, again to quote Lenin ""Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich – that is the democracy of capitalist society"

Socialism focuses on democracy of the masses from workers councils up to the state

Anarchy. It is an alternative, but not a good one.

ruveyn

The problem is we have convinced ourselves that we are "beacon of democracy", when this democracy is not less idealist than anything else, and now we have set about trying to export it.

Political structures, are dependent on the global politic. There is not self contained politics; even isolationism is influenced by global politics. Influential people work globally. Example: Murdock. He doesn’t care the about the parties themselves. He has media the supports many different political parties in different parties, but obviously he is going to support those he can sway his way.

Politicians can be bought in democracies just as much as in anything else. Powerful lobbies are much more influential then voters on the whole, even if the lobby is made up entirely of non-citizens.

People also are also prone to behavioural conditioning and people want politicians that lie. They want to be told the same damn thing every election, so they can have their cake and eat it too. Then they are surprised when the promises can't be met.

Primitivism isn't a solution. However if individuals are capable of surviving out in a wilderness and all their needs can be met this way then all better for them.

The fact of the matter is in order for democracy and capitalism to be palatable they need to be controlled. This is not popular as it goes against the notion that they are perfect solutions.

There are serious questions about what being part of a nation really means and perhaps it is nationalism that is part of the problem.

There are major problems with campaign funding. It is getting more and more expensive. Transparency rules can be got round.

There are major problems with voting logistics. It is questionable whether interim polling is meaningful or just gives the impression the governance involves the people.

The trickle down effect hasn’t been proven and that relative poverty problem can be solved by overall wealth.

If technocrats were people persons they would already be involved in politics directly. They fact is many of them aren't. Technocrat type polices tend to get a bad rep. That is an understatement in some cases. Nothing incenses the population more than that some so called expert telling them what to do. They do well to work behind the scenes, and offer advice.

Tea-party much?

Technocracy

No.

I detest collectivist ideologies.

If the government can't even run the post office, how do you expect them to run our industries?

ruveyn

>:I

Good job choosing an example that's personally offensive to me.

If private industry can't even run General Motors how can you trust them with government?

GM-like industries will not run any governments.
Certain firms will deal with certain services, requested by its costumers and no one will be forced to fund the services, it would be voluntary.
Force comes from the State. Any private firm forcing people would lose against the competition who is not forcing people.


And GM failed because of its failed policies not because it is "private".
In a free market environment GM would have had to close and leave room for more responsible and innovative people.
GM was bailed out with extorted funds, nationalizing great part of it, putting its debt into the pockets of non-governmental individuals.

GM (in theory) exists to make a sell vehicles and the parts thereto. It does not exist to provide order of or defense to society. That is what governments are for.

Societies have to be governed by public entities, not privately owned firms. The Latin phrase res publica (people's thing) describes it. That is where we get our word "republic" from.

ruveyn