"Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried."
Here I go quoting Robert A. Heinlein for a second time this month on HN. Democracy is to me the ultimate example of why "good enough today" is world better than "perfect tomorrow".
The problem, IMO, is that we have idealised democracy and forgotten that, indeed, it "is a poor system of government at best".
"Good enough today" doesn't mean that you get to go home tomorrow, it is the preference of incrementalism over getting everything perfect in one go. Incrementalism then implies that you continue to look for things that are better, and that your recognise that what you have is only good enough, not perfect.
There are plenty of suggestions out there for improving the political system, such as direct democracy and more proportional representation. My main problem with these are that they are argued in terms for being "more democratic", ie. closer to the ideal that we should realise is deeply flawed, not in terms of actually better for society, except in terms for policies favoured by the proponents being perceived as easier to vote through.
>The problem, IMO, is that we have idealised democracy and forgotten that, indeed, it "is a poor system of government at best".
I think the real problem is we think democracy is just a form of government, whereas (and this was known to ancient Athenians) democracy is simultaneously all about active citizen participation.
If people just vote once in 4 years, and at best do a few protesting here and there in insignificant numbers compared to the total number of citizens, then that's not any a democracy in the original sense, though we might call it that.
Agreed. Direct democracy doesn't actually appeal to me. While there is something to the idea of just directly voting up or down on laws of the land, that means that we now have completely clueless people with the up/downvote button making decisions. Think of what 4chan can do with a direct democracy system.
The way I see it, the basic problem of government is "how do we get honest and competent people into power?" I think if we start with that foundation, we get just laws, civil liberties, etc. as a result. Democracy solves this by saying that the government will be transparent, and the majority will surely spot the problems. However, as we can see this system is easily gamed, and when you have an apathetic majority of voters things get even worse. At some point one might argue that it becomes worth asking if it's better to have a monarch who fears revolution or an elected body that fears not being re-elected.
At some point one might argue that it becomes worth asking if it's better to have a monarch who fears revolution or an elected body that fears not being re-elected.
We have plenty of 'monarchs who fear revolution' today. A monarch is simply a hereditary autocrat, and there are tons of autocrats in the from of dictators today. It's no guarantee of even a mildly reasonable quality of life - indeed, scanning through a list of countries sorted by a quality of life index didn't show any autocratic countries in the top 50: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index
Edit: there is one - Qatar in spot #41
The way I see it, the basic problem of government is "how do we get honest and competent people into power?"
Unfortunately, most of the people who desire power aren't the kind of honest people we'd like in power. The ideal system would be less about how to get the honest in power, and more about how to control for corruption.
Fair enough. My main point is that those in power should be held more responsible, not less, for their actions. Currently, in the US, those in power very rarely feel personal consequences of performing poorly.
On the other point, yes, it's an old old idea that you should give power to those that are refusing it the most. Ideally, once again, a transparent government where everyone is held responsible individually, not in their position, will fear its people and will be much less likely to become corrupt.
On the other point, yes, it's an old old idea that you should give power to those that are refusing it the most.
This is an adage to be said over a few beers, but doesn't really work in real life. Plenty of folks would heartily refuse to govern while also being incapable of governing. Refusal of power doesn't equate to proficiency in governance.
Your first point is the real goal - checks and balances. Just today in the paper here in Aus, there are reports of a freshly retired politician who had his wife on payroll for quite a nice amount, but the staff in the office report never having seen her for three years. All up it'll be a couple of hundred thousand worth in fraud, but will he actually get anything more than a slap on the wrist? How different would be the treatment if it was welfare fraud instead?
a transparent government... will fear its people
The idea of a government being scared of its constituents is a peculiarly American viewpoint; that things should be kept in place by fear of putting a foot wrong. Checks and balances should obviously be there, but the semantics of philosophically starting out from a place of fear is just bizarre.
The US is very much into polarising anything political into two groups (government vs people in this case) - very odd given that it's got one of the greatest varieties of cultures on the planet.
Heh. I never thought of it any other way. No I don't think that people who work for the government should actually experience fear when doing their jobs. I use the term "government should fear its people" as a turn of phrase to mean that the government that is elected by the people to serve the people should perhaps face very direct consequences when it fails. For example, when a congress fails to perform its basic function of passing a budget, the whole lot of them should be recalled as they are clearly unable to perform a simple task. So by fear I really mean "respect and be accountable to".
Edit: regarding giving power to the unwilling: my point was that extreme want of power is a negative when it comes to a candidate, but a lack of that specific type of ambition is a necessary but insufficient qualification.
Well, if that politician had feared anything - public outcry, mob action, loss of reputation, consequences of his fraudulent action - he might not have done what he did.
Not to say that politicians should go to work daily with trembling anxiety. But it would really help if they dreaded letting their constituents down (on the negative emotion side) and aspired to serve their constituents honorably (on the positive emotion side).
> The way I see it, the basic problem of government is "how do we get honest and competent people into power?"
I entirely disagree.
The basic question of political theory is "How do we create and maintain a just society?" Government, and the kind of government, is a large part of this answer. Just laws are another large part. The distribution of power is another part. But first you have to answer what constitutes a just society at all, and you will already have disagreements. For me, I turn to Martha Nussbaum's Capability Theory, and her Ten Central Capabilities, for guidance on what capabilities every individual in a just society should have. It's not a clear-cut answer, but it's an excellent starting point.
Your mistake, as I see it, is to conflate governmental positions with power. But power isn't that simple; or rather, it's much simpler than that. Getting honest and competent people into power involves more than governmental hiring practices and elections; it involves controls on the private sector and on the wealthy and on the charismatic. That seems a slippery slope to go down.
Here I go quoting Robert A. Heinlein for a second time this month on HN. Democracy is to me the ultimate example of why "good enough today" is world better than "perfect tomorrow".