New British Glory
25-06-2005, 19:26
A friend and I had an argument as to whether professional quotas (i.e. the number of one profession allowed into the government) should be applied. He (a biochemistry student) argued that there should be more scientists in government and less lawyers and he believed that the best way to do this was through quotas. Now I replied to him this reponse:
Scientists in government? It is right and proper that the government be representative of the people it is voted by and as such there should be (at least in theory) a wide range of professions in the House of Commons. However why is it not so? Quite simply, lawyers are the best qualified for the job. They have excellent public speaking skills, a vital necessity for debating in the two chambers, a skill certain professions may lack. They also understand how the law works and as such can understand how to create good law. This critical skill is something that can take years of training to accomplish - it is not easy to read an Act of Parliament, let alone understand it, write it and apply it! Other professions, which do not focus so heavily on analysis and problem solving skills, may not be able to handle this difficult duty as well as a competent lawyer. It is not by coincidence that most politicians are lawyers - the reason is because it is a time tested method and it generally produces results. You might argue about the quality of these results but that would be your opinion.
Prime amongst your arguments was the need for a quota as to the number of scientists placed in Parliament. However why should this be when this quota could deprive well qualified lawyers of positions while giving them to potentially less qualified scientists? Just because you have an understanding of science does not make a person a good MP. The same can be said for forcing companies to take on women or those of an ethnic minority - surely the test should nbe the colour of your skin or your profession but the talent your exhibit in the role? Therefore I would stand against such a quota as it would disqualify able people from positions via positive dsicrimination (which in effect it is).
You also mentioned that perhaps scientists should be the policy makers and lawyers be the civl servants (rather than the other way round than it is currently). Inevitably this cannot work because Parliament's main function is as a legislative body: placing those ignorant of the law into the Commons would only damage the country as Parliament would be unable to carry out its first and foremost duty properly. As such it would be for the better if it were lawyers advised by scientist civil servants as science plays no major role on the proceedings of the Commons.
Also if you advocate proportional representation for scientists, perhaps you might advocate proportional representation for Chavs as well? I mean Chavs form a part of Britain that is unrepresentated in government and they have their own unique viewpoint to bring on problems - shall we dictate that a certain number of MPs are Chavs? You might argue that this is an absurd twisting of your orginal idea but it is not: it is the same principle being applied.
The fact is if scientists want to be MPs there is little stopping them: there are already doctors in the Commons (Dr Liam Fox, a GP for example). There is no need for a quota system as if doctors have the necessary skills required to be an MP they will be elected. If not, they will not be elected. The same stands for lawyers and indeed anyone standing to be an MP.
Freedom of choice would also be restricted by quotas. Now as you correctly pointed out, 'freedom' is an argument often used against restrictive measures but in this case it is entirely appropriate as freedom of choice is the essential element upon which democracy is based. By removing this freedom of choice from the electorate (by quotas) you undermine democracy in order to impose a composition of your choosing on Parliament rather than a composition of the people's choosing. This is clearly undemocratic.
I just wondered what other people thought? Although this argument focuses on scientists being in government, ti could really be applied to any sort of quota.
Scientists in government? It is right and proper that the government be representative of the people it is voted by and as such there should be (at least in theory) a wide range of professions in the House of Commons. However why is it not so? Quite simply, lawyers are the best qualified for the job. They have excellent public speaking skills, a vital necessity for debating in the two chambers, a skill certain professions may lack. They also understand how the law works and as such can understand how to create good law. This critical skill is something that can take years of training to accomplish - it is not easy to read an Act of Parliament, let alone understand it, write it and apply it! Other professions, which do not focus so heavily on analysis and problem solving skills, may not be able to handle this difficult duty as well as a competent lawyer. It is not by coincidence that most politicians are lawyers - the reason is because it is a time tested method and it generally produces results. You might argue about the quality of these results but that would be your opinion.
Prime amongst your arguments was the need for a quota as to the number of scientists placed in Parliament. However why should this be when this quota could deprive well qualified lawyers of positions while giving them to potentially less qualified scientists? Just because you have an understanding of science does not make a person a good MP. The same can be said for forcing companies to take on women or those of an ethnic minority - surely the test should nbe the colour of your skin or your profession but the talent your exhibit in the role? Therefore I would stand against such a quota as it would disqualify able people from positions via positive dsicrimination (which in effect it is).
You also mentioned that perhaps scientists should be the policy makers and lawyers be the civl servants (rather than the other way round than it is currently). Inevitably this cannot work because Parliament's main function is as a legislative body: placing those ignorant of the law into the Commons would only damage the country as Parliament would be unable to carry out its first and foremost duty properly. As such it would be for the better if it were lawyers advised by scientist civil servants as science plays no major role on the proceedings of the Commons.
Also if you advocate proportional representation for scientists, perhaps you might advocate proportional representation for Chavs as well? I mean Chavs form a part of Britain that is unrepresentated in government and they have their own unique viewpoint to bring on problems - shall we dictate that a certain number of MPs are Chavs? You might argue that this is an absurd twisting of your orginal idea but it is not: it is the same principle being applied.
The fact is if scientists want to be MPs there is little stopping them: there are already doctors in the Commons (Dr Liam Fox, a GP for example). There is no need for a quota system as if doctors have the necessary skills required to be an MP they will be elected. If not, they will not be elected. The same stands for lawyers and indeed anyone standing to be an MP.
Freedom of choice would also be restricted by quotas. Now as you correctly pointed out, 'freedom' is an argument often used against restrictive measures but in this case it is entirely appropriate as freedom of choice is the essential element upon which democracy is based. By removing this freedom of choice from the electorate (by quotas) you undermine democracy in order to impose a composition of your choosing on Parliament rather than a composition of the people's choosing. This is clearly undemocratic.
I just wondered what other people thought? Although this argument focuses on scientists being in government, ti could really be applied to any sort of quota.