--- On Wed, 18/3/09, Fred Gohlke <[email protected]> wrote: > Good Morning, Juho > > I've been on the fence about whether or not it is > appropriate for me to respond to your last message on this > thread. Since I'm aware you "... value many of the > political systems of today higher than ..." I do, and since > we've exchanged many thoughts over the past year, I fear > anything I say may sound more like a harangue than a > positive contribution. I have no wish to be > argumentative. Still, after considering the matter, > I've decided to offer two observations: > > re: "... in many democracies people can influence the > direction > of their country." > > I do not believe that to be true. As Dr. Alasdair > MacIntyre of Notre Dame University (cited by Dr. Ted Clayton > in 'The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy') said: > > "Politically the societies of advanced Western > modernity > are oligarchies disguised as liberal > democracies. The large > majority of those who inhabit them are > excluded from > membership in the elites that determine > the range of > alternatives between which voters are > permitted to choose.."
Ok, this may be just a question on if the glass is half full or half empty. Our political systems do have serious problems but on the other hand we are somewhat above "the laws of jungle". > > > re: "Of course despite of this the systems have plenty of > faults > and we should seek and implement > improvements whenever we > can." > > It is not possible to 'seek and implement improvements' > until we itemize the faults. We must identify them > before we can correct them. Yes. > To that end, we might > consider starting with these: > > * An oligarchic party structure that controls the choices > made > available to the people. Yes. I'd say that all large structures have the tendency to become oligarchic (that covers e.g. companies, associations and administrative structures in addition to parties). > > * Corruption, caused by the parties' need for funds to > conduct > their operations, that leads to the selling of > legislation to > benefit the donors rather than the public Yes. I have referred to this problem as the one-man-one-vote v.s. one-dollar-one-vote problem. Our democratic principles assume the former but the practical systems often have flaws that allow the latter to take power. Companies, labor unions and other interest groups need to be heard but not become the masters. Good rules needed to avoid slipping into bad tracks. > (like the > gutting and > eventual repeal of the Glass-Steagall Acts, enacted > to protect > the public from the excesses of the financial > industry; a > political act that so obviously led to the > world-wide financial > chaos we now endure ... in your country as well as > mine!) > > * Incitement of passionate support rather than inspiring > thoughtful consideration of public concerns. Yes. Some passion is maybe needed and fruitful but I'd much rather see the political field as a discussion field than a battle field. Maybe the corrective means would include some very traditional training in good manners. In these matters everyone should do his/her part to get the whole society on the right track. > > * Defeating the checks and balances intended to prevent > the > excessive accumulation of power. I'm not sure if I got this point but my understanding is that in all systems people will find the loopholes. We should keep the system simple and clear, and we should also enforce the rules where necessary to minimize the risk of major leaks. > > If these are, as I see them, serious concerns, what > specific improvements can we make to prevent their > destructiveness? Yes, these concerns are serious, and we should make our political systems less vulnerable to them. New election methods as well as other means should be used. > Practical Democracy addresses and > forestalls each of these faults. Other alternatives > must exist. What are they and how can we implement > them? > > Should I keep belaboring you with such questions? I think there is a great need for good analysis on these areas. The solving of problems typically starts from understanding them. Here are some more random thoughts that popped up when I read your mail. I think many of these themes cover not only parties but also other large organizations. - An organizational hierarchy typically promotes people who are eager to climb up - An organizational hierarchy typically promotes people who are good at climbing up - The Peter Principle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle> - Montesquieus separation of powers could be extended to cover also other areas like economy I mentioned the laws of jungle above. We can take that to mean the bottom level, and see the evolution of political systems as steps up towards systems that are better for its members. Many tricks have been tried, and often we have lost the path for a while, but from this point of view there surely are still steps to climb. Juho (P.S. There are also new opportunities like the ones offered by the unforeseen wealth (= all basic needs met + some extra money) of the technically advanced and economically richest countries. And there are new challenges like reaching the limits of the earth to support continuous growth of the economy (and our well-being), and the exponential growth of human population. These new challenges and opportunities require also new kind of solutions.) > > Fred Gohlke > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
