A few comments on Keith Hudson's comments:
> I refer to Ed Weick's contribution of 19:58 27/09/00 -0400:
>
> In a way, yes. I would not dispense with politicians because they are
> necessary. By "they" I mean the civil service. Far more intelligent and
> far better politicians than the those we vote for, they are the real
> power-holders in the modern nation-state. They are well-nigh invisible and
> unaccountable, yet they are the people who actually carry out the
policies.
Keith is onto something here, though I'm not quite sure of what it is. As a
one time bureaucrat, I would agree that there is tremendous power lodged in
the bureaucracy, power to promote, power to distort and power to thwart. At
one time, as a young civil servant, I used to think of the bureaucracy as
something rather evil - as something which took good ideas from both the top
and the bottom and so muffled and twisted them that what finally came out
was anything but what was intended. I'm much older now, though perhaps not
much wiser, and now see the bureaucracy as something that takes wild ideas
from both the top and the bottom and filters them into something balanced
and sensible. Aging does wonderful things!
> The state (civil service) cannot be relied upon to lay out all the
> information to the public. Nor do I see the public, en masse, as somehow
> able to produce the answers, particularly on complex issues. What we need
> are specialist forums that are open to the public, so that all those
> individuals who wish to take part in policy discussion and formulation can
> do so. Mind you, they would have to prove their commitment by attending
> meetings and by being able to argue their case.
I have at times gone back to the Canadian federal department I worked with
just before I retired (well over a decade ago now) as a consultant.
Initially the experience was positive, but then it became less and less so.
The department has been "downsized" and many of the things it once did have
been moved out or are simply no longer done. Many of the people who really
knew the issues and who could provide sensible policy advice that the
politicians and public could then consider are long gone and have not been
replaced. Friends who worked with other departments tell me the same thing
has happened there. What this suggests is a bureaucracy of declining
competence and a growing inability to deal with significant public issues.
I do hope that this is not the case, but I fear it is.
> I think we see two signs of this happening in the advanced countries --
one
> of them a very strong sign. This is the growth of single-issue pressure
> groups and societies. The other (in the UK, anyway) is the relatively
> recent introduction of House of Commons Select Committees. These are
> specialist committees and meet and cross-examine experts in their own
> field. There are also the American Congress Committees, but I don;t know
> much about them. The problem with the UK Select Committees is that MPs who
> are specialists do not have the right to join the Select Committee of
their
> choice. They are selected by the Whips, and the Whips are in the service
> of the Prime Minister. So they are not always as objective as they might
be.
>
> I see these two signs, one from the bottom and one from the top as being
> glimpses of the sort of direct democaracy of the future. However, even if
I
> am right, they will take generations to develop to the extent that they
> need to.
I'm a little more cynical than you are, Keith. I see a weakening of public
power, and a growing concentration of power in private hands, and not only
in private hands, but in the hands of very large agglomerations which are
able to operate entirely out of self-interest beyond the rules and
boundaries of nation states. What I fear is that democracy will become a
sham in the sense that people will continue to go to the polls, will
continue to mark their ballots, but that very little will happen because of
it. Less and less will happen and fewer and fewer people will go to the
polls. As you point out below, this is already happening in the US.
With less and less public power, and less and less meaning in democracy as
now institutionalized, people will feel they have little recourse but to
take to the streets, as they have already done in Seattle, Washington and
most recently Prague. I don't agree with their tactics, but I recognize
they are doing it out of a sense of something ominous on the horizon.
> But, really, the present political system has had its day. Fewer and fewer
> people are turning out to vote. This particularly applies to younger
> people. The latest survey in America shows that only 61% of people aged
> between 18 and 24 have not bothered to register to vote, and 83% didn't
> vote in the last Presidential election. This trend is seriously wrrying
> politicians in all countries. Campaigns are being linked to basketball
> tournaments in America. In the UK, compulsory Political Education will be
> on the syllabus in schools in 2003. (Of course, that will make politicas
> even more unpopular!)
I rather hope that your last sentence (in parenthesis) does not turn out to
be true, but it probably will. Much will depend on what is taught and how
it is taught, and here I'm pessimistic. But that's for a posting another
time.
Ed
Ed Weick
(613) 728-4630
Visit my website: http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636
