Hi Ray and Brad,
At 12:15 12/11/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>
(KH)
The only partially successful form of objective truth-seeking (with its
influence on policy-making) that mankind has developed so far is the peer
review system in our universities and scientific disciplines. This has its
faults but something like this is what we now need in politics and
government. We need policy forums for the future, not party political
manifestos which are so long and tedious and, ultimately, platitudinous,
that they don't really mean anything. Peer review would be democratic in
that anybody could join whatever policy forum that interested them, but if
they wanted their ideas to succeed they would have to argue their way
cogently against their peers in order to get their policies accepted at a
high level.
>>>>
<<<<
(RH)
Politics is more like Art and you don't trust peer review with artists
anymore than the Republicans do here. If you did you would look more
seriously at modern art and take less refuge in the sensual past. Peer
review almost killed the NEA here in the US. There are certain areas
where everyone believes themselves equal to the experts and all knowledge
reduced to opinion. It isn't but it causes a real problem for Democracy.
The only answer is smarter people.
>>>>
Politics is actually a modern form of our instinctive yearnings for being
led (by most of the population) and the intensive desire to lead (by a few)
-- a still-powerful remnant of our hunter-gatherer past. Politics is rather
like Art in its showbiz manifestations when all the tricks of the trade are
used. This leadership thing may have been all right in times past when
issues were relatively simple but it's far too dangerous today.
For quite some time now (I'd say about 60-80 years) the real thinking and
governance that's been going on within advanced countries has been by the
civil service. Senior civil servants are (still) far more intelligent than
the average politician -- and they live with the ongoing problems from year
to year -- whatever the short-term complexion of the government of the day.
This wouldn't be so bad except for (a) the constant tendency for those in
power (now, the civil service) to be secretive and, (b) for the past decade
or two, the really bright graduates don't automatically go into the civil
service any longer -- they're either in academe or with the multinational
corporations, etc.
Yes, you're quite right, Ray: "The only answer is smarter people." The
point is that very few of them indeed are to be found in present-day
showbiz politics or, more recently, in civil services. They're scattered
about now. Some new form of debate is needed. And, as I've already said,
the rise of single-issue groups and the better quality discussion
programmes in the media, I think we are seeing the beginnings of this.
<<<<
(KH)
Quite how policy forums would intermesh with the civil service is still
problematical to me, but the mushrooming of single-issue groups in the last
few decades in all advanced countries convinces me that we're beginning to
see the evolution of this type of forum politics.
>>>>
<<<<
(RH)
This all sounds like Technocracy to me. Maybe someone else could help me
on this. I believe that the answer lies in culturally sophisticated
people who can trust each other's professional expertise and experience and
which doesn't reduce all action to a statement of economic power. What do
you all think?
>>>>
I did my best to avoid the Technocratic label by saying that we ought to
develop institutions/forums which are open to any individual who is
prepared to study a subject sufficiently well to argue his/her case.
I agree totally with the Jurgen Habermas quote that Brad has made:
<<<<
(BMcC)
a real democracy is government [cracy] by the people themselves [the demos]
-- in direct face-to-face "discourse aimed at reaching uncoerced agreement
based only on the unforced force of the best argument".
>>>>
The point is that "best argument" needs well-informed, well-educated
individuals. There are many general issues where the ordinary individual is
well-informed, but there is an increasing number of very complex issues
today. Neither the ordinary person, nor the average politician, nor even
(now) senior civil servants are well-informed on these. There needs to be
highly-specialised debate on these. There is no need for these to be held
in private, however. (That would certainly make it technocratic.)
Intuitively, ordinary people are well able to judge the sincerity and
expertise of specialists -- so long as their debate is fully accessible. By
"accessible", I mean not only the debate, but also the membership of the
debates.
Keith
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus, www.calus.org
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
