This is about government.
Say we have a big family unit to organise; or a hobby group like a large camera club, maybe an association of long distance hikers. A decision making process is needed; who gets which bedroom, what's for dinner, what photographic field trips or challenging treks should be scheduled; how can we decide these things?
Here's an idea. We'll get the members to form groups - let's call them parties - who share the same kind of ideas. They can write the ideas down and display them alongside their party names. Then we'll have each member vote to elect the persons whose party's ideas appeal the most. Those elected will make up the decision making body but the size of the body is limited. Only those with the most votes will get to take part in decision making.
Now the Big Party - the one that has the most elected members - will have a number of perks & priveleges that the other parties won't get: More workspace, faster computers, better travel allowances & funds to hire helpers & advisers - a whole battery of things to make their work easier than anyone else's. When questions are to be decided, the Big Party gets to propose the answers and The Other Parties have to argue against them. Then members of all parties vote. If the Big Party's proposal gets defeated the whole shebang may be disbanded and we have to start all over again.
Would you run your family or your bowling club this way? If not, why the country? I know my analogy has flaws, and I know Winston Churchill declared western democracy the best bad system but really does it make any sense? Doesnt it look like something that came out of the common-room at the funny farm?
What do you think a really good, truly democratic system would look like? What would be its componenets and characteristics; how would it work?
Say we have a big family unit to organise; or a hobby group like a large camera club, maybe an association of long distance hikers. A decision making process is needed; who gets which bedroom, what's for dinner, what photographic field trips or challenging treks should be scheduled; how can we decide these things?
Here's an idea. We'll get the members to form groups - let's call them parties - who share the same kind of ideas. They can write the ideas down and display them alongside their party names. Then we'll have each member vote to elect the persons whose party's ideas appeal the most. Those elected will make up the decision making body but the size of the body is limited. Only those with the most votes will get to take part in decision making.
Now the Big Party - the one that has the most elected members - will have a number of perks & priveleges that the other parties won't get: More workspace, faster computers, better travel allowances & funds to hire helpers & advisers - a whole battery of things to make their work easier than anyone else's. When questions are to be decided, the Big Party gets to propose the answers and The Other Parties have to argue against them. Then members of all parties vote. If the Big Party's proposal gets defeated the whole shebang may be disbanded and we have to start all over again.
Would you run your family or your bowling club this way? If not, why the country? I know my analogy has flaws, and I know Winston Churchill declared western democracy the best bad system but really does it make any sense? Doesnt it look like something that came out of the common-room at the funny farm?
What do you think a really good, truly democratic system would look like? What would be its componenets and characteristics; how would it work?
